Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27294436›Full record

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

Interpretation of verbal descriptors for response options commonly used in verbal rating scales in patient-reported outcome instruments.

Alex Mutebi, Marion Slack, Terri L Warholak, Stacie Hudgens, Stephen Joel Coons

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effect ofNutrients · 2020
    Trial
  2. Measuring what matters to older persons for active living: part II cross-sectional validity evidence for OPAL measure across four countries.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Perineural local anesthetic treatments for osteoarthritic pain.Regenerative engineering and translational medicine · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

Alex MutebiGlobal Health Economics, Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320, USA. alexmutebi@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-4433-5166
Marion SlackCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Terri L WarholakCollege of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Stacie HudgensStrategic Lead, Clinical Outcomes Solutions, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Stephen Joel CoonsPatient-Reported Outcome Consortium, Critical Path Institute, Tucson, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the variation in the interpretation of common verbal descriptors (VDs) used in response scales and examine factors associated with those interpretations.

methodsSubjects were recruited through MediGuard and they assigned interpretation scores (11-point scale; 0 = lowest possible, 10 = highest possible) to five common sets of VDs: set one (none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe); set two (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always); set three (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent); set four (not at all, a little bit, moderately, quite a bit, extremely); and set five (not at all, a little bit, somewhat, quite a bit, very much). One-sample test for proportions and T-tests examined equality of proportions (anchors) and means scores (non-anchors) with the fixed intervals (0.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0). Ordinal regression examined adjusted associations between demographic/clinical factors and VD scores.

resultsOf the 350 subjects, 68 % were females and mean (SD) age was 56.9 (12.1). Two sets had two VDs with mean (95 % CI) scores not different than the fixed intervals. Set one had mild = 2.50 (2.33; 2.66) and moderate = 5.01 (4.89; 5.13) with 98.8 % (97.3 %; 100 %) assigning none = 0. Set five had a little bit = 2.35 (2.17; 2.53) and quite a bit = 7.65 (7.43; 7.87) with 95.0 % (95 % CI 91.7; 98.2) assigning not at all = 0. Significant associations (p ≤ 0.05) included age and education with somewhat and income and comorbidities with very severe. Age, sex, and education showed associations with other VDs albeit in nonsignificant models.

conclusionsSets one and five yielded data closest to the fixed intervals. Demographic and clinical factors are associated with the interpretation of some VDs and should be adjusted for in analyses of non-randomized data.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality of LifeReference ValuesPatient-reported outcome measuresResponse scalesVerbal rating scale

Identifiers

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.