Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder.

Autor: Brundage M; Department of Oncology, Queens Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University Kingston, Kingston, ON, Canada. michael.brundage@krcc.on.ca.; Cancer Clinic of Southeastern Ontario, 25 King Street West, Kingston, ON, K7L 5P9, Canada. michael.brundage@krcc.on.ca., Blackford A; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 550 N. Broadway, Room 1111, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA., Tolbert E; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 725, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA., Smith K; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 726, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA., Bantug E; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA., Snyder C; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 649, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation [Qual Life Res] 2018 Jan; Vol. 27 (1), pp. 75-90. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Nov 02.
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6
Abstrakt: Purpose: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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.
Conclusions: 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.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje