Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34615733›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2023

Patient-centred outcomes of imaging tests: recommendations for patients, clinicians and researchers.

Matthew J Thompson, Monica Zigman Suchsland, Victoria Hardy, Danielle C Lavallee, Sally Lord, Emily Beth Devine, Jeffrey G Jarvik, Steven Findlay, Thomas A Trikalinos, Fiona M Walter and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthew J ThompsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA mjt@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4331-3758
Monica Zigman SuchslandDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Victoria HardyDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8620-4404
Danielle C LavalleeDepartment of Health Systems and Population Research, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sally LordThe University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Emily Beth DevineThe Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington School of Pharmacy, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9945-6099
Jeffrey G JarvikDepartments of Radiology and Neurological Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Steven FindlayBarnesville, Maryland, USA.
Thomas A TrikalinosDepartments of Health Services, Policy & Practice, and Biostatistics, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health Science, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476
Roger ChouDepartment of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Beverly B GreenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Karen J WernliKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Annette L FitzpatrickDepartments of Family Medicine, Epidemiology, and Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Patrick M BossuytEpidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Washington · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USBrown University · USOregon Health & Science University · USQueen Mary University of London · GBThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

UW Core Center for Clinical Research of Musculoskeletal ConditionsP30AR072572 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI JEFFREY G JARVIK, Pradeep Suri · 2017 to 2026
$8.3M
NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR072572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImaging tests are one of the most frequently used diagnostic modalities in healthcare, but the benefits of their direct impacts on clinical decision-making have been countered by concerns that they can be overused. Assessing the relative value of imaging tests has largely focused on measures of test accuracy, which overlooks more comprehensive benefits and risks of imaging tests, particularly their impact on patient-centred outcomes (PCOs). We present the findings of the Patient Reported Outcomes of Diagnostics (PROD) research study in response to a methodological gap in the area of diagnostic test comparative effectiveness research.

methodsOver a 3-year period, the PROD Study engaged with multiple stakeholders to identify existing conceptual models related to PCOs for imaging testing, conducted primary research and evidence synthesis, and developed consensus recommendations to describe and categorise PCOs related to imaging testing.

resultsThe PROD framework categorises PCOs from imaging studies within four main domains: information or knowledge yielded, physical impact, emotional outcomes and test burden. PCOs interact with each other and influence effects across domains, and can be modified by factors related to the patient, clinical situation, healthcare team and the testing environment.

conclusionsUsing PCOs to inform healthcare decision-making will require ways of collating and presenting information on PCOs in ways that can inform patient-provider decision-making, and developing methods to determine the relative importance of outcomes (including test accuracy) to one another.

Indexed as

Cytochrome P-450 CYP2B1Outcome Assessment, Health CareHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresCytochrome P-450 CYP2B1clinicalcomparative effectiveness researchdecision supportevaluation methodologypatient-centred carequality improvement methodologies

Identifiers

PMID34615733
PMCPMC10447372
OpenAlexW3201667187

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.