Literature DB >> 28327975

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

M L Bell1, M H Fiero2, H M Dhillon3, V J Bray4, J L Vardy5,6.   

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in cancer studies, particularly with the emphasis on patient centered outcome research. However, multiple PROs, using different scales, with different directions of favorability are often used within a trial, making interpretation difficult. To enhance interpretability, we propose the use of a standardized effect size graph, which shows all PROs from a study on the same figure, on the same scale. Plotting standardized effects with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on a single graph clearly showing the null value conveys a comprehensive picture of trial results. We demonstrate how to create such a graph using data from a randomized controlled trial that measured 12 PROs at two time points. The 24 effect sizes and CIs are shown on one graph and clearly indicate that the intervention is effective and sustained.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer; effect size; graphs; patient-reported outcomes; quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28327975      PMCID: PMC5834129          DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Oncol        ISSN: 0923-7534            Impact factor:   32.976


  15 in total

Review 1.  A comprehensive strategy for the interpretation of quality-of-life data based on existing methods.

Authors:  Patrick Marquis; Olivier Chassany; Linda Abetz
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2004 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 2.  Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists.

Authors:  Shinichi Nakagawa; Innes C Cuthill
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2007-11

Review 3.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis Revicki; Ron D Hays; David Cella; Jeff Sloan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew G Bushmakin
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.021

Review 5.  Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors.

Authors:  D Howell; S Molloy; K Wilkinson; E Green; K Orchard; K Wang; J Liberty
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-04-17       Impact factor: 32.976

6.  Evaluation of a Web-Based Cognitive Rehabilitation Program in Cancer Survivors Reporting Cognitive Symptoms After Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Victoria J Bray; Haryana M Dhillon; Melanie L Bell; Michael Kabourakis; Mallorie H Fiero; Desmond Yip; Frances Boyle; Melanie A Price; Janette L Vardy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 7.  Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials.

Authors:  M L Friedlander; M T King
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 8.  Patient reported outcomes as endpoints in medical research.

Authors:  Diane L Fairclough
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes.

Authors:  Dennis A Revicki; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Jeff A Sloan; William R Lenderking; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-27       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective.

Authors:  Holger J Schünemann; Elie A Akl; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-09-14       Impact factor: 3.186

View more
  4 in total

1.  Challenges to interpreting patient reported outcomes in clinical trials: author rejoinder.

Authors:  Melanie L Bell
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-11

2.  Challenges of interpreting patient reported outcomes from clinical trials.

Authors:  Diane L Fairclough
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-10

Review 3.  Innovations in research and clinical care using patient-generated health data.

Authors:  Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  Guidance for using pilot studies to inform the design of intervention trials with continuous outcomes.

Authors:  Melanie L Bell; Amy L Whitehead; Steven A Julious
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.790

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.