Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Presented in part at the 2016 International Society for Quality of Life Research Annual Meeting.
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings.
We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating “better” patient status; (2) higher scores indicating “more” of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores. Two formats displayed proportions changed (pie/bar charts). Multivariate modeling was used to analyze interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings.
Two hundred and thirty-three clinicians and 248 researchers responded; ten clinicians were interviewed. Line graphs with “better” directionality were more likely to be interpreted accurately than “normed” line graphs (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01–2.38; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between “better” and “more” formats. “Better” formatted graphs were also more likely to be rated “very clear” versus “normed” formatted graphs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44–2.54; p < 0.001). For proportions changed, respondents were less likely to make an interpretation error with pie versus bar charts (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.2–0.6; p < 0.001); clarity ratings did not differ between formats. Qualitative findings informed the interpretation of the survey findings.
Graphic formats for presenting PRO data differ in how accurately they are interpreted and how clear they are perceived to be. These findings will inform the development of best practices for optimally reporting PRO findings.
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 20 KB)11136_2017_1710_MOESM1_ESM.docx
US FDA: Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims; Federal Registrer, 2009, pp. 65132–65133.
Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N. K., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., & Rothman, M., PRO Harmonization Group. (2003) Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6, 522–531. CrossRefPubMed
Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 833–843. CrossRef
Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., Palmer, M., Richardson, H., & Meyer, R. M., NCIC CTG Quality of Life Committee.(2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128. CrossRef
Bruner, D. W., Bryan, C. J., Aaronson, N., Blackmore, C. C., Brundage, M., Cella, D., Ganz, P. A., Gotay, C., Hinds, P. S., Kornblith, A. B., Movsas, B., Sloan, J., Wenzel, L., & Whalen, G. (2007). National Cancer Institute: Issues and challenges with integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials networks. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 5051–5057. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Brundage, M. D., Feldman-Stewart, D., Bezjak, A., Leis, A., Degner, L., Fleming, S., Tu, D., Velji, K., & Pater, J. (2005). The value of quality of life information in a cancer treatment decision. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 11–15 (abstract).
Rouette, J., Blazeby, J., King, M., Calvert, M., Peng, Y., Meyer, R. M., Ringash, J., Walker, M., & Brundage, M. D. (2015). Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1317–1325. CrossRefPubMed
PROQOLID, the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database (2012). http://www.proquolid.org.
Smith, K. C., Brundage, M. D., Tolbert, E., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24:4149–4157. CrossRefPubMed
Brundage, M. D., Smith, K. C., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2015). Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2457–2472. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Tolbert, E., Snyder, C., Bantug, E., Blackford, A., & Brundage, M. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Graphing group-level data from research studies for presentation to patients in educational materials and decision aids. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 25, 17 (abstract).
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., & de Haes, J. C. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. CrossRefPubMed
AtlasTi: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, 2014.
Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Hess, R., Miller, D., Reeve, B., & Santana, M. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. CrossRefPubMed
Bantug, E. T., Coles, T., Smith, K. C., Snyder, C. F., Rouette, J., & Brundage, M. D. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: What makes a pro picture worth a thousand words? Patient Education & Counseling, 99, 483–490. CrossRef
- Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board (various names and locations)
- Springer International Publishing