Literature DB >> 23427226

Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes.

Joseph C Cappelleri1, Andrew G Bushmakin2.   

Abstract

A patient-reported outcome is any report on the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient. Clear and meaningful interpretation of patient-reported outcome scores are fundamental to their use as they can be valuable in designing studies, evaluating interventions, educating consumers, and informing health policy makers involved with regulatory, reimbursement, and advisory agencies. Interpretation of patient-reported outcome scores, however, is often not well understood because of insufficient data or lack of experience or clinical understanding to draw from. This article provides an update review on two broad approaches--anchor-based and distributed-based--aimed at enhancing the understanding and meaning of patient-reported outcome scores. Anchor-based approaches include percentages based on thresholds, criterion-group interpretation, content-based interpretation, and clinical important difference. Distributed-based approaches include effect size, probability of relative benefit, and responder analysis and cumulative proportions. A third strategy called mediation analysis, which can elucidate a health condition measured by a patient-reported outcome in the context of an intervention's mechanism of action, is also highlighted and illustrated. Mediation analysis in the context of interpretation of patient-reported outcome scores is a relatively new development. The logic and rationale of the three methods are expressed generally. While the three approaches themselves are not new, some applications of them taken from their examples published in the past few years are original and coalesced in this article to add real-life implications of the different methodologies in one integrated report.
© The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Patient-reported outcome; anchor-based approach; distribution-based approach; interpretation; mediation analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23427226     DOI: 10.1177/0962280213476377

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  14 in total

Review 1.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  Important Group Differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index Disease-Related Symptoms in Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  David Cella; Robert J Motzer; Brian I Rini; Joseph C Cappelleri; Krishnan Ramaswamy; Subramanian Hariharan; Bhakti Arondekar; Andrew G Bushmakin
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2018-05-11       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Establishing clinically-relevant terms and severity thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures of physical function, cognitive function, and sleep disturbance in people with cancer using standard setting.

Authors:  Nan E Rothrock; Karon F Cook; Mary O'Connor; David Cella; Ashley Wilder Smith; Susan E Yount
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Statistical controversies in cancer research: using standardized effect size graphs to enhance interpretability of cancer-related clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  M L Bell; M H Fiero; H M Dhillon; V J Bray; J L Vardy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals.

Authors:  Leslie Wehrlen; Mike Krumlauf; Elizabeth Ness; Damiana Maloof; Margaret Bevans
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Validity and Clinically Meaningful Changes in the Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire and Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function Assessment: Results From the Testosterone Trials.

Authors:  Christina Wang; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Leonard R DeRogatis; Glenn R Cunningham; Ronald S Swerdloff; Peter Preston; David Cella; Peter J Snyder; Thomas M Gill; Shalender Bhasin; Alvin M Matsumoto; Raymond C Rosen
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.802

7.  A New Procedure to Assess When Estimates from the Cumulative Link Model Can Be Interpreted as Differences for Ordinal Scales in Quality of Life Studies.

Authors:  Yilin Ning; Peh Joo Ho; Nathalie C Støer; Ka Keat Lim; Hwee-Lin Wee; Mikael Hartman; Marie Reilly; Chuen Seng Tan
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 4.790

8.  Stability Enhanced Variable Selection for a Semiparametric Model with Flexible Missingness Mechanism and Its Application to the ChAMP Study.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Jiwei Zhao; Gregory Wilding; Melissa Kluczynski; Leslie Bisson
Journal:  J Appl Stat       Date:  2019-08-24       Impact factor: 1.416

9.  Characterizing neuropathic pain profiles: enriching interpretation of painDETECT.

Authors:  Joseph C Cappelleri; Vijaya Koduru; E Jay Bienen; Alesia Sadosky
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2016-07-05

10.  Tofacitinib in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire Items in Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Induction Studies.

Authors:  Marla C Dubinsky; Marco DiBonaventura; Haiyun Fan; Andrew G Bushmakin; Joseph C Cappelleri; Eric Maller; Andrew J Thorpe; Leonardo Salese; Julian Panés
Journal:  Inflamm Bowel Dis       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 5.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.