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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |