Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26334842›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2016

Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis.

Claudia Rutherford, Daniel Costa, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Holly Rice, Liam Gabb, Madeleine King

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Does the Mode of PROM Administration Affect the Responses of Hospitalized Patients?Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2022
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Psychometric evaluation of self-report outcome measures for prosthetic applications.Journal of rehabilitation research and development · 2016
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

6 authors.

Claudia RutherfordQuality of Life Office, Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.
Daniel CostaQuality of Life Office, Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rebecca Mercieca-BebberQuality of Life Office, Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Holly RiceCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Liam GabbKings' College London, London, UK.
Madeleine KingQuality of Life Office, Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTechnological advances in recent decades have led to the availability of new modes to administer patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To aid selecting optimal modes of administration (MOA), we undertook a systematic review to determine whether differences in bias (both size and direction) exist among modes.

methodsWe searched five electronic databases from 2004 (date of last comprehensive review on this topic) to April 2014, cross-referenced and searched reference lists. Studies that compared two or more MOA for a health-related PRO measure in adult samples were included. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria and extracted findings. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted using random-effects models.

resultsOf 5100 papers screened, 222 were considered potentially relevant and 56 met eligibility criteria. No evidence of bias was found for: (1) paper versus electronic self-complete; and (2) self-complete versus assisted MOA. Heterogeneity for paper versus electronic comparison was explained by type of construct (i.e. physical vs. psychological). Heterogeneity for self-completion versus assisted modes was in part explained by setting (clinic vs. home); the largest bias was introduced when assisted completion occurred in the clinic and follow-up was by self-completion (either electronic or paper) in the home.

conclusionsSelf-complete paper and electronic MOA can be used interchangeably for research in clinic and home settings. Self-completion and assisted completion produce equivalent scores overall, although heterogeneity may be induced by setting. These results support the use of mixed MOAs within a research study, which may be a useful strategy for reducing missing PRO data.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsPatient Outcome AssessmentQuality of LifeAdultBiasHumansModels, StatisticalSelf ReportBiasMode of administrationPatient-reported outcomeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26334842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.