Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-01-2018

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

Authors: Michael Brundage, Amanda Blackford, Elliott Tolbert, Katherine Smith, Elissa Bantug, Claire Snyder, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board (various names and locations)

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
US FDA: Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcomes measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims; Federal Registrer, 2009, pp. 65132–65133.
2.
Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Leidy, N. K., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., & Rothman, M., PRO Harmonization Group. (2003) Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6, 522–531.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science & Medicine, 60, 833–843.CrossRef
4.
Greenhalgh, J. (2009). The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why? Quality of Life Research, 18, 115–123.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Till, J. E., Osoba, D., Pater, J. L., & Young, J. R. (1994). Research on health-related quality of life: Dissemination into practical applications. Quality of Life Research, 3, 279–283.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Au, H.-J., Ringash, J., Brundage, M., Palmer, M., Richardson, H., & Meyer, R. M., NCIC CTG Quality of Life Committee.(2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128.CrossRef
7.
Bruner, D. W., Bryan, C. J., Aaronson, N., Blackmore, C. C., Brundage, M., Cella, D., Ganz, P. A., Gotay, C., Hinds, P. S., Kornblith, A. B., Movsas, B., Sloan, J., Wenzel, L., & Whalen, G. (2007). National Cancer Institute: Issues and challenges with integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials networks. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25, 5051–5057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Brundage, M. D., Feldman-Stewart, D., Bezjak, A., Leis, A., Degner, L., Fleming, S., Tu, D., Velji, K., & Pater, J. (2005). The value of quality of life information in a cancer treatment decision. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 11–15 (abstract).
9.
Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20, 979–985.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10, 1–13.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Rouette, J., Blazeby, J., King, M., Calvert, M., Peng, Y., Meyer, R. M., Ringash, J., Walker, M., & Brundage, M. D. (2015). Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1317–1325.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Snyder, C. F., & Aaronson, N. K. (2009). Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet, 374(9687), 369–370.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Smith, K. C., Brundage, M. D., Tolbert, E., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24:4149–4157.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Brundage, M. D., Smith, K. C., Little, E. A., Bantug, E. T., & Snyder, C. F. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2015). Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2457–2472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Tolbert, E., Snyder, C., Bantug, E., Blackford, A., & Brundage, M. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Graphing group-level data from research studies for presentation to patients in educational materials and decision aids. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 25, 17 (abstract).
17.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., & de Haes, J. C. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Johnson, J. A., McAlister, F. A., Kim, D., Weinkauf, J., & Lien, D. C. (2010). Assessing the use of health-related quality of life measures in the routine clinical care of lung-transplant patients. Quality of Life Research, 19, 371–379.CrossRefPubMed
19.
AtlasTi: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development, 2014.
20.
Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., Elliott, T. E., Greenhalgh, J., Hess, R., Miller, D., Reeve, B., & Santana, M. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Bantug, E. T., Coles, T., Smith, K. C., Snyder, C. F., Rouette, J., & Brundage, M. D. PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. (2016). Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: What makes a pro picture worth a thousand words? Patient Education & Counseling, 99, 483–490.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Presenting comparative study PRO results to clinicians and researchers: beyond the eye of the beholder
Authors
Michael Brundage
Amanda Blackford
Elliott Tolbert
Katherine Smith
Elissa Bantug
Claire Snyder
PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board (various names and locations)
Publication date
01-01-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 1/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1710-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Quality of Life Research 1/2018 Go to the issue

Special Section: Measuring What Matters (by invitation only)

Measuring what matters MOST: validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer

OriginalPaper

How is weight stigma related to children’s health-related quality of life? A model comparison approach

OriginalPaper

Differential item functioning by language on the PROMIS® physical functioning items for children and adolescents

OriginalPaper

Combat exposure, emotional and physical role limitations, and substance use among male United States Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers

Brief Communication

The relationship of five boarding school experiences and physical health status among Northern Plains Tribes

Commentary

Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a reply to Maratia et al