Cargando…

Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brundage, Michael, Blackford, Amanda, Tolbert, Elliott, Smith, Katherine, Bantug, Elissa, Snyder, Claire
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6
_version_ 1783293081602228224
author Brundage, Michael
Blackford, Amanda
Tolbert, Elliott
Smith, Katherine
Bantug, Elissa
Snyder, Claire
author_facet Brundage, Michael
Blackford, Amanda
Tolbert, Elliott
Smith, Katherine
Bantug, Elissa
Snyder, Claire
author_sort Brundage, Michael
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating “better” patient status; (2) higher scores indicating “more” of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores. Two formats displayed proportions changed (pie/bar charts). Multivariate modeling was used to analyze interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three clinicians and 248 researchers responded; ten clinicians were interviewed. Line graphs with “better” directionality were more likely to be interpreted accurately than “normed” line graphs (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01–2.38; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between “better” and “more” formats. “Better” formatted graphs were also more likely to be rated “very clear” versus “normed” formatted graphs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44–2.54; p < 0.001). For proportions changed, respondents were less likely to make an interpretation error with pie versus bar charts (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.2–0.6; p < 0.001); clarity ratings did not differ between formats. Qualitative findings informed the interpretation of the survey findings. CONCLUSIONS: Graphic formats for presenting PRO data differ in how accurately they are interpreted and how clear they are perceived to be. These findings will inform the development of best practices for optimally reporting PRO findings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5770492
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57704922018-01-26 Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder Brundage, Michael Blackford, Amanda Tolbert, Elliott Smith, Katherine Bantug, Elissa Snyder, Claire Qual Life Res Article PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from clinical trials can inform clinical care, but PRO interpretation is challenging. We evaluated the interpretation accuracy and perceived clarity of various strategies for displaying clinical trial PRO findings. METHODS: We conducted an e-survey of oncology clinicians and PRO researchers (supplemented by one-on-one clinician interviews) that randomized respondents to view one of the three line-graph formats (average scores over time for two treatments on four domains): (1) higher scores consistently indicating “better” patient status; (2) higher scores indicating “more” of what was being measured (better for function, worse for symptoms); or (3) normed scores. Two formats displayed proportions changed (pie/bar charts). Multivariate modeling was used to analyze interpretation accuracy and clarity ratings. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three clinicians and 248 researchers responded; ten clinicians were interviewed. Line graphs with “better” directionality were more likely to be interpreted accurately than “normed” line graphs (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.01–2.38; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between “better” and “more” formats. “Better” formatted graphs were also more likely to be rated “very clear” versus “normed” formatted graphs (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.44–2.54; p < 0.001). For proportions changed, respondents were less likely to make an interpretation error with pie versus bar charts (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.2–0.6; p < 0.001); clarity ratings did not differ between formats. Qualitative findings informed the interpretation of the survey findings. CONCLUSIONS: Graphic formats for presenting PRO data differ in how accurately they are interpreted and how clear they are perceived to be. These findings will inform the development of best practices for optimally reporting PRO findings. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-02 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5770492/ /pubmed/29098606 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Brundage, Michael
Blackford, Amanda
Tolbert, Elliott
Smith, Katherine
Bantug, Elissa
Snyder, Claire
Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title_full Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title_fullStr Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title_full_unstemmed Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title_short Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
title_sort presenting comparative study pro results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770492/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098606
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6
work_keys_str_mv AT brundagemichael presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT blackfordamanda presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT tolbertelliott presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT smithkatherine presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT bantugelissa presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT snyderclaire presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder
AT presentingcomparativestudyproresultstocliniciansandresearchersbeyondtheeyeofthebeholder