Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015
Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
79 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Pooled it
- Quantitative assessment of visual designs for communicating patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer care to patients.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Trial
- Nurses' preferences for the format of care planning clinical decision support coded with standardized nursing languages.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023Trial
- Evaluating a web-based personalized decision report for total knee or hip replacement: Lessons learned from patients.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2023Trial
- Longitudinal Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis to evaluate tolerability: a case study of lenalidomide in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance) trial.The Lancet. Haematology · 2020Trial
- Computerized Quality of Life Assessment: A Randomized Experiment to Determine the Impact of Individualized Feedback on Assessment Experience.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2016Trial
- A mixed methods study on patients' and healthcare professionals' understanding of the graphical presentation of patient-reported outcome data at an inpatient unit for psychosomatic medicine.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Making sense of PROM outcomes: a mixed method study to optimize graphical visualization formats for children.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- From participatory design to clinical routine: new concepts for visualizing patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer care.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- A Targeted Literature Review and Patient Focus Groups to Develop Recommendations for Reporting Patient-Reported Measures to Patients and Consumers in Clinical Quality Registries.Health services insights · 2026Article
- The Experience of Spanish Cancer Patients and Professionals With Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Practice.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Usability testing of an individualized decision aid for total knee arthroplasty.PEC innovation · 2025Article
- Longitudinal graphics of patient-reported physical function in patients treated for hematologic malignancies.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Clinician and Patient Perspectives on a Patient-Facing Online Breast Cancer Symptom Visualization Tool.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Factors that impact the implementation of patient reported outcomes in routine clinical care for peripheral artery disease from the patient perspective.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Best practices and pragmatic approaches for patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures in cancer clinical trials.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2025Article
- Development of a Best Practice Guide to Optimise the Reporting of Patient Reported Measures by Clinical Quality Registries for Quality Improvement Purposes.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Interpretability and Clinical Utility of the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory - Patient Reported Outcome (PEDI-PRO) Score Report.Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics · 2025Article
19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient-centered care by using PRO research results ("group-level data") to inform decision making and by monitoring individual patient's PROs ("individual-level data") to inform care. We investigated the interpretability of current PRO data presentation formats.
methodThis cross-sectional mixed-methods study randomized purposively sampled cancer patients and clinicians to evaluate six group-data or four individual-data formats. A self-directed exercise assessed participants' interpretation accuracy and ratings of ease-of-understanding and usefulness (0 = least to 10 = most) of each format. Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored helpful and confusing format attributes.
resultsWe reached thematic saturation with 50 patients (44 % < college graduate) and 20 clinicians. For group-level data, patients rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 8.0; 33 % selected for easiest to understand/most useful) and clinicians rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 9.0, 8.5) but most often selected line graphs with confidence limits or norms (30 % for each format for easiest to understand/most useful). Qualitative results support that clinicians value confidence intervals, norms, and p values, but patients find them confusing. For individual-level data, both patients and clinicians rated line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding (median 8.0 patients, 8.5 clinicians) and usefulness (median 8.0, 9.0) and selected them as easiest to understand (50, 70 %) and most useful (62, 80 %). The qualitative interviews supported highlighting scores requiring clinical attention and providing reference values.
conclusionsThis study has identified preferences and opportunities for improving on current formats for PRO presentation and will inform development of best practices for PRO presentation. Both patients and clinicians prefer line graphs across group-level data and individual-level data formats, but clinicians prefer greater detail (e.g., statistical details) for group-level data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.