Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21126374›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2010

Reference bias: presentation of extreme health states prior to EQ-VAS improves health-related quality of life scores. a randomised cross-over trial.

Steven McPhail, Elaine Beller, Terry Haines

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Population norms for the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Romania.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Head-to-head comparison of health-state values derived by a probabilistic choice model and scores on a visual analogue scale.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2017
    Article
  5. Review
  6. A survey investigating the associations between self-management practices and quality of life in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Visual analogue scales: scale recalibration by patients with dementia and their proxies.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Steven McPhailCentre for Functioning and Health Research, Ipswich Road, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia. steven_mcphail@health.qld.gov.au
Elaine Beller
Terry Haines

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice and clinical research has made a concerted effort to move beyond the use of clinical indicators alone and embrace patient focused care through the use of patient reported outcomes such as health-related quality of life. However, unless patients give consistent consideration to the health states that give meaning to measurement scales used to evaluate these constructs, longitudinal comparison of these measures may be invalid. This study aimed to investigate whether patients give consideration to a standard health state rating scale (EQ-VAS) and whether consideration of good and poor health state descriptors immediately changes their self-report.

methodsA randomised crossover trial was implemented amongst hospitalised older adults (n = 151). Patients were asked to consider descriptions of extremely good (Description-A) and poor (Description-B) health states. The EQ-VAS was administered as a self-report at baseline, after the first descriptors (A or B), then again after the remaining descriptors (B or A respectively). At baseline patients were also asked if they had considered either EQ-VAS anchors.

resultsOverall 106/151 (70%) participants changed their self-evaluation by ≥ 5 points on the 100 point VAS, with a mean (SD) change of +4.5 (12) points (p < 0.001). A total of 74/151 (49%) participants did not consider the best health VAS anchor, of the 77 who did 59 (77%) thought the good health descriptors were more extreme (better) then they had previously considered. Similarly 85/151 (66%) participants did not consider the worst health anchor of the 66 who did 63 (95%) thought the poor health descriptors were more extreme (worse) then they had previously considered.

conclusionsHealth state self-reports may not be well considered. An immediate significant shift in response can be elicited by exposure to a mere description of an extreme health state despite no actual change in underlying health state occurring. Caution should be exercised in research and clinical settings when interpreting subjective patient reported outcomes that are dependent on brief anchors for meaning.

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (#ACTRN12607000606482) http://www.anzctr.org.au.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAnalysis of VarianceCross-Over StudiesFemaleHealth Status IndicatorsHumansMalePsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID21126374
PMCPMC3014890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.