Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37341698›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

A powerful partnership: researchers and patients working together to develop a patient-facing summary of clinical trial outcome data.

Emily Ruzich, Jason Ritchie, France Ginchereau Sowell, Aliyah Mansur, Pip Griffiths, Hannah Birkett, Diane Harman, Jayne Spink, David James, Matthew Reaney

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Understanding data visualization techniques in qualitative studies used to develop and validate patient-reported outcome measures: a targeted literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Advancing the science of visualization of health data for lay audiences.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Emily RuzichPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6612-7600
Jason RitchiePatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, New York, New York, USA.
France Ginchereau SowellPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, New York, New York, USA.
Aliyah MansurPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, London, UK.
Pip GriffithsPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Paris, France.
Hannah BirkettMedical and Patient Communications, IQVIA, Reading, UK.
Diane HarmanPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, New York, New York, USA.
Jayne SpinkProstate Cancer Research, London, UK.
David JamesProstate Cancer Research, London, UK.
Matthew ReaneyPatient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Reading, UK.
IQVIA (United States) · USIQVIA (United Kingdom) · GBProstate Cancer Research · GBIQVIA (France) · FR

Funding

IQVIA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAvailability of easy-to-understand patient-reported outcome (PRO) trial data may help individuals make more informed healthcare decisions. Easily interpretable, patient-centric PRO data summaries and visualizations are therefore needed. This three-stage study explored graphical format preferences, understanding, and interpretability of clinical trial PRO data presented to people with prostate cancer (PC). MATERIALS AND

methodsA 7-day online survey exploring people with PC's preferences for different PRO data presentations (stage 1; n = 30) informed development of a draft plain-language resource sheet containing PRO data. After refining for clarity during cognitive debriefing interviews (stage 2; n = 18), the final resource sheet was circulated to people with PC for broader feedback (stage 3; n = 45).

resultsAlthough participants expressed preferences for certain graphical formats (pie charts and bar charts), preference did not always associate with interpretability and overall message clarity. Iterative development (stages 1 and 2) led to a final resource sheet, which 91.1% of participants in stage 3 considered useful and informative, and 88.9% expressed interest in receiving similar resources in the future. DISCUSSION: Findings demonstrate PRO data are relevant to people with PC and highlights that targeted resource sheets can support patient-clinician discussions. Appropriate graphical formatting and use of plain-language text is essential for conveying interpretable PRO data. Data visualization preferences are context dependent.

conclusionResource sheets summarizing clinical trial PRO data can be helpful for decision-making in PC. Researchers and patients can work together to develop clear, relevant, sensitive, and understandable resource sheets, which equally consider patient priorities as well as those of scientists.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresResearch PersonnelClinical Trials as TopicHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnairesdata visualizationhealth communicationpatient-reported outcome measureprostatic neoplasmsqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID37341698
PMCPMC10797263
OpenAlexW4381469812

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.