Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30498892›Full record

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

In proportion: approaches for displaying patient-reported outcome research study results as percentages responding to treatment.

Elliott Tolbert, Michael Brundage, Elissa Bantug, Amanda L Blackford, Katherine Smith, Claire Snyder, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Communicating treatment risks and benefits to cancer patients: a systematic review of communication methods.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors.

Elliott TolbertJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. etolber2@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1372-5903
Michael BrundageCancer Clinic of Southeastern Ontario, Queens Cancer Research Institute, 25 King Street West, Kingston, ON, K7L 5P9, Canada.
Elissa BantugSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Amanda L BlackfordSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Katherine SmithJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 725, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Claire SnyderJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
National Cancer Institute P30CA006973NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute R-1410-24904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePatient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can promote valuable patient-clinician communication and aid the decision-making process regarding treatment options. Despite these benefits, both patients and doctors face challenges in interpreting PRO scores. The purpose of this study was to identify best practices for presenting PRO results expressed as proportions of patients with changes from baseline (improved/stable/worsened) for use in patient educational materials and decision aids.

methodsWe electronically surveyed adult cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers, and conducted one-on-one cognitive interviews with patients/survivors and clinicians. Participants saw clinical trial data comparing two treatments as proportions changed using three different formats: pie charts, bar graphs, icon arrays. Interpretation accuracy, clarity, and format preference were analyzed quantitatively and online survey comments and interviews, qualitatively.

resultsThe internet sample included 629 patients, 139 clinicians, and 249 researchers; 10 patients and 5 clinicians completed interviews. Bar graphs were less accurately interpreted than pie charts (OR 0.39; p < .0001) and icon arrays (OR 0.47; p < .0001). Bar graphs and icon arrays were less likely to be rated clear than pie charts (OR 0.37 and OR 0.18; both p < .0001). Qualitative data informed interpretation of these findings.

conclusionsFor communicating PROs as proportions changed in patient educational materials and decision aids, these results support the use of pie charts.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeAdultAgedCommunicationFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorsCancerCommunicationDecision aidsDecision-makingEducational materialsPatient-reported outcomes (PROs)

Identifiers

PMID30498892
PMCPMC6387635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.