Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621641›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2022

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement in Radiation Oncology: Interpretation of Individual Scores and Change over Time in Clinical Practice.

Jae-Yung Kwon, Lara Russell, Theresa Coles, Robert J Klaassen, Kara Schick-Makaroff, Kathryn M Sibley, Sandra A Mitchell, Richard Sawatzky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Response shift results of quantitative research using patient-reported outcome measures: a descriptive systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Response shifting: a qualitative meta-synthesis on response shift.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Jae-Yung KwonSchool of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada.
Lara RussellSchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC V2Y 1Y1, Canada.
Theresa ColesDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27701, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2941-8999
Robert J KlaassenDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6913-2808
Kara Schick-MakaroffFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6200-3416
Kathryn M SibleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0W3, Canada.
Sandra A MitchellOutcomes Research Branch, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Richard SawatzkySchool of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC V2Y 1Y1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-8042-190X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tools for measuring patients' perceived health and quality of life, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), inform clinical decisions for patients requiring radiation therapy. However, there may be inconsistencies in how patients interpret and respond to PROMs due to cultural, environmental, personal, or experiential factors. Differential item functioning (DIF) and response shift (RS) refer to differences in the meaning of PROMs between patients or over time (respectively). DIF and RS can threaten the accurate interpretation and use of PROMs, potentially resulting in erroneous conclusions about effectiveness, and flawed individual-level clinical decision-making. Given the empirical evidence of DIF and RS, we aim to review clinical implications and solutions for addressing DIF and RS by providing vignettes from collaborative examinations with workshop participants, as well as the literature. By making these methodological concepts accessible and relevant, for practice, clinicians may feel more confident to ask clarifying questions of patients when PROM scores and the contextual patient information do not align. PROM scores need to be interpreted via dialogue with the patient to avoid misinterpretation due to DIF and RS, which could diminish patient-clinician communication and impede shared decision-making. This work is part of an interdisciplinary knowledge translation initiative focused on the interpretation of PROM scores by clinically-oriented audiences.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeRadiation OncologyClinical Decision-MakingHumansPatient Reported Outcome Measuresdifferential item functioningpatient-reported outcome measuresresponse shift

Identifiers

PMID35621641
PMCPMC9139498

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.