Table 2.

Data extraction and quality appraisal of discrete choice experiment studies regarding cancer treatment

References	Sample size (n)	Attributes (n)	Outcome			Process					Costs	P	R	E	F	S	Score
			Effectiveness	Adverse effects	Quality of life	Mode of administration	Frequency of dosage	Waiting times	Location	Others
Bridges et al. [31]	89	8	2	5	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Goodall et al. [32]	152	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	6	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Sung et al. [33]	274	4	0	3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Wong et al. [34]	272	8	1	6	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Tinelli et al. [35]	174	4	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	4
Park et al. [36]	444	6	1	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Regier et al. [37]	162	5	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	3
Hauber et al. [38]	173	8	0	8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Miller et al. [39]	301	8	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	3
Najafzadeh et al. [40]	1096	7	2	2	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	4
Smith et al. [41]	641	4	1	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Johnson et al. [42]	296	4	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	1	4
Havrilesky et al. [43]	95	7	2	3	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Lalla et al. [44]	298	8	0	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	2
Mohamed et al. [45]	138	7	1	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
daCosta DiBonaventura et al. [46]	181	11	1	8	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Qian et al. [47]	580	6	2	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	3
Mühlbacher et al. [48]	211	7	2	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Kimman et al. [49]	331	5	0	0	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
Thrumurthy et al. [50]	171	6	2	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	3
Hechmati et al. [51]	506	5	2	2	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4
de Bekker-Grob et al. [52]	97	5	2	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	5
Martin et al. [53]	124	11	3	2	1	3	0	0	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	3
Mohamed et al. [54]	134	4	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
de Bekker-Grob et al. [55]	160	5	1	3	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Damen et al. [56]	270	6	1	2	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	3
Ngorsuraches et al. [57]	146	4	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	3
Bessen et al. [58]	722	5	0	0	0	2	1	0	2	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	4

P purpose, R respondents, E explanation, F findings, S significance