Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28963296›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Presentation approaches for enhancing interpretability of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in meta-analysis: a protocol for a systematic survey of Cochrane reviews.

Tahira Devji, Bradley C Johnston, Donald L Patrick, Mohit Bhandari, Lehana Thabane, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Foot and Ankle Outcome Instruments: Missing the Target.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 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

6 authors.

Tahira DevjiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8414-7410
Bradley C JohnstonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Donald L PatrickDepartment of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Gordon H GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

OLFACTORY RECEPTORSF32DC000190 · NIDCD · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ZHANG, YINONG · 1995 to 1998
–
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC000190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMeta-analyses of clinical trials often provide sufficient information for decision-makers to evaluate whether chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. Interpretation of the magnitude and importance of treatment effects beyond statistical significance can, however, be challenging, particularly for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measured using questionnaires with which clinicians have limited familiarity. The objectives of our study are to systematically evaluate Cochrane systematic review authors' approaches to calculation, reporting and interpretation of pooled estimates of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in meta-analyses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a methodological survey of a random sample of Cochrane systematic reviews published from 1 January 2015 to 1 April 2017 that report at least one statistically significant pooled result for at least one PRO in the abstract. Author pairs will independently review all titles, abstracts and full texts identified by the literature search, and they will extract data using a standardised data extraction form. We will extract the following: year of publication, number of included trials, number of included participants, clinical area, type of intervention(s) and control(s), type of meta-analysis and use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the quality of evidence, as well as information regarding the characteristics of PROMs, calculation and presentation of PROM effect estimates and interpretation of PROM effect estimates. We will document and summarise the methods used for the analysis, reporting and interpretation of each summary effect measure. We will summarise categorical variables with frequencies and percentages and continuous outcomes as means and/or medians and associated measures of dispersion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this study is not required. We will disseminate the results of this review in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch DesignClinical Trials as TopicDecision MakingHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as Topiccontinuous outcomesinterpretabilitymeta-analysisminimal important differencepatient-reported outcomesstandardized mean difference

Identifiers

PMID28963296
PMCPMC5623559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.