Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30426276›Full record

ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

Is quality of life a suitable measure of patient decision aid effectiveness? Sub-analysis of a Cochrane systematic review.

Claudia Rutherford, Madeleine T King, Phyllis Butow, France Legare, Anne Lyddiatt, Intissar Souli, Orlando Rincones, Dawn Stacey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. 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. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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.

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, 2006, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4637-4572
Madeleine T 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, 2006, Australia.
Phyllis ButowQuality 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, 2006, Australia.
France LegareUniversité Laval Primary Care Research Centre (CERSSPL-UL), Quebec City, Canada.
Anne LyddiattHealth Consumer, Ingersoll, ON, Canada.
Intissar SouliSchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Orlando RinconesCentre for Oncology Education and Research Translation (CONCERT), Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research & University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Dawn StaceySchool of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient decision-aids (PtDAs) help patients make informed treatment decisions incorporating their values. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is sometimes an outcome of PtDA effectiveness trials, but its suitability for this purpose is unclear. We sought to provide insights into this question by critically appraising how randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PtDA effectiveness measure and report HRQOL.

methodsWe conducted a sub-analysis of RCTs included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs. Trials assessing HRQOL at baseline and post-PtDA, and comparing PtDA with comparison groups were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Analysis was descriptive.

resultsOf 105 RCTs, 11 were eligible for inclusion. Patients randomized to PtDAs did not report better HRQOL than those randomized to usual care. While all 11 RCTs adequately described baseline sample characteristics and reported HRQOL results for study groups, few stated a priori HRQOL expectations or hypotheses (36%); made a link between HRQOL and the decision (18%); provided a rationale or justification for HRQOL assessment (18%); provided reason for choice of HRQOL assessment time-points (9%); or adjusted p-values for multiple HRQOL domains and time-points (0%). DISCUSSION: PtDAs did not conclusively impact HRQOL. If this holds generally, then HRQOL is an uninformative endpoint for PtDA effectiveness trials. When planning trials of PtDAs, investigators considering HRQOL endpoints should consider whether and why their PtDA is likely to affect HRQOL in their context, and if so, which specific aspect(s) of HRQOL and at which time-point(s), and ensure HRQOL is assessed accordingly.

Indexed as

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesHealth StatusQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansQualitative ResearchRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCochrane, systematic reviewPatient decision aidsQuality of lifeRandomized controlled trialsShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID30426276

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.