Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32562194›Full record

Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

Translating clinical and patient-reported data to tailored shared decision reports with predictive analytics for knee and hip arthritis.

Patricia D Franklin, Hua Zheng, Christina Bond, Danielle C Lavallee

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. One report, multiple aims: orthopedic surgeons vary how they use patient-reported outcomes with patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Using feedback tools to enhance the quality and experience of care.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patricia D FranklinDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 North Michigan Ave, Room 21-051, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. Patricia.franklin@northwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4441-0533
Hua ZhengUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Christina BondPatient Research Group, LLC, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Danielle C LavalleeUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Northwestern University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute IHS-1507-31714-IC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNew informatics tools can transform evidence-based information to individualized predictive reports to serve shared decisions in clinic. We developed a web-based system to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and medical risk factors and to compare responses to national registry data. The system generates predicted outcomes for individual patients and a report for use in clinic to support decisions. We present the report development, presentation, and early experience implementing this PRO-based, shared decision report for knee and hip arthritis patients seeking orthopedic evaluation.

methodsIterative patient and clinician interviews defined report content and visual display. The web-system supports: (a) collection of PROs and risk data at home or in office, (b) automated statistical processing of responses compared to national data, (c) individualized estimates of likely pain relief and functional gain if surgery is elected, and (d) graphical reports to support shared decisions. The system was implemented at 12 sites with 26 surgeons in an ongoing cluster randomized trial.

resultsClinicians and patients recommended that pain and function as well as clinical risk factors (e.g., BMI, smoking) be presented to frame the discussion. Color and graphics support patient understanding. To date, 7891 patients completed the assessment before the visit and 56% consented to study participation. Reports were generated for 98% of patients and 68% of patients recalled reviewing the report with their surgeon.

conclusionsInformatics solutions can generate timely, tailored office reports including PROs and predictive analytics. Patients successfully complete the pre-visit PRO assessments and clinicians and patients value the report to support shared surgical decisions.

Indexed as

Osteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneeHumansPatient ParticipationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeOsteoarthritisPatient-reported outcomesPredictive analyticsShared decision-makingTotal joint replacement

Identifiers

PMID32562194
PMCPMC8528740
OpenAlexW3036817903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.