Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30238084›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2017

Literature review to characterize the empirical basis for response scale selection in pediatric populations.

April N Naegeli, Jennifer Hanlon, Katharine S Gries, Shima Safikhani, Anna Ryden, Mira Patel, Mabel Crescioni, Margaret Vernon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

April N Naegeli1Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, DC1542, Indianapolis, IN 46285 USA.
Jennifer Hanlon2Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, 301 Binney St, Cambridge, MA 02142 USA.
Katharine S Gries3Janssen Global Services LLC, 700 US, 202 Raritan Ave, Raritan, NJ 08869 USA.
Shima Safikhani4Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.
Anna RydenAstraZeneca Gothenburg, Pepparedsleden 1, 431 50 MöIndal, Sweden.
Mira Patel6Critical Path Institute, 1730 E River Rd, Tucson, AZ 85718 USA.
Mabel Crescioni6Critical Path Institute, 1730 E River Rd, Tucson, AZ 85718 USA.
Margaret Vernon4Evidera, 7101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 1400, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.

Funding

Critical Path to Public Private PartnershipsU18FD005320 · FDA · CRITICAL PATH INSTITUTE · PI Klaus Romero · 2014 to 2026
$127.1M
FDA HHS U18 FD005320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the importance of response option selection for patient-reported outcome measures, there seems to be little empirical evidence for the selected scale type. This article provides an overview of the published research on response scale types and empirical support within pediatric populations.

methodsA comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify response scale option types appropriate for use in pediatric populations and to review and summarize the available empirical evidence for each scale type.

resultsEleven review/consensus guideline/expert opinion articles and 20 empirical articles that provided guidance or evidence regarding pediatric response scale selection were identified. There was general consensus that 5-point verbal rating scales, including Likert scales, were appropriate for children aged 7 or 8 and older, while graphical or faces scales are often used in pediatric studies with children of younger ages.

conclusionIn general, the verbal rating scale, numeric rating scale, visual analogue scale, and graphical scales have each demonstrated to be reliable and valid response option formats in specific contexts among pediatric populations; however, their appropriateness is dependent upon sample age. When selecting response scales, it is important to consider target population and context of use during the development of patient-reported outcome measures, especially with respect to tense, recall period, attribution, number of options, etc. In addition to age, cognitive development is an important aspect to consider for optimizing pediatric self-reported measures. More research is needed to determine clinically relevant changes and differences within pediatric research, which includes different response scale options.

Indexed as

ChildrenPatient-reported outcomePediatricRating scaleResponse optionResponse scales

Identifiers

PMID30238084
PMCPMC6127069

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.