Clinician's Checklist for Reading and Using an Article About Patient-Reported Outcomes

Wu, Albert W.; Bradford, Anna; Velanovich, Vic; Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.; Brundage, Michael; Snyder, Claire

doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.017

Cited by 23 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proliferation of studies reporting PROs led to an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to specifically address the use of PROs in randomized trials 4 and instructions from the Food and Drug Administration regarding the use of PROs in trials for labeling of medical products. 5 Wu et al 6 recently published a checklist to help clinicians interpret research studies that use PROs. In fact, PROs have become so widespread that multiple major journals have published viewpoint articles suggesting that PROs be collected regularly in all clinical settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergent Validity of Three Methods for Measuring Postoperative Complications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Anesthesiologists need tools to accurately track postoperative outcomes. The accuracy of patient report in identifying a wide variety of postoperative complications after diverse surgical procedures has not previously been investigated. Methods In this cohort study, 1,578 adult surgical patients completed a survey at least 30 days after their procedure asking if they had experienced any of 18 complications while in the hospital after surgery. Patient responses were compared to the results of an automated electronic chart review and (for a random subset of 750 patients) to a manual chart review. Results from automated chart review were also compared to those from manual chart review. Forty-two randomly selected patients were contacted by telephone to explore reasons for discrepancies between patient report and manual chart review. Results Comparisons between patient report, automated chart review, and manual chart review demonstrated poor-to-moderate positive agreement (range, 0 to 58%) and excellent negative agreement (range, 82 to 100%). Discordance between patient report and manual chart review was frequently explicable by patients reporting events that happened outside the time period of interest. Conclusions Patient report can provide information about subjective experiences or events that happen after hospital discharge, but often yields different results from chart review for specific in-hospital complications. Effective in-hospital communication with patients and thoughtful survey design may increase the quality of patient-reported complication data.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergent Validity of Three Methods for Measuring Postoperative Complications

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 Since then, further criteria have been published for evaluating the methodological quality of HRQOL instruments. [27][28][29][30][31][32] Recommendations and guidelines are included in the following discussions. Table 1 provides a checklist of the most important guidelines when conducting studies involving HRQOL data, and the short list of questions and/or an algorithm to guide the reviewer includes questions to direct reviews of studies that involve HRQOL data.…”

Section: Statistical and Reporting Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Considerations for Reporting and Reviewing Studies Including Health-Related Quality of Life

Lapin

2020

Chest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-reported measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are increasingly used in clinical management and evaluation of patient outcomes. HRQOL measures are used to monitor patient progress and treatment response, investigate effects of medical interventions, and provide patient-based data for quality improvement initiatives and policy decisions. Given the importance of HRQOL, it is imperative that the instruments used to assess HRQOL are precise, valid, reliable, and responsive, and that the HRQOL data are appropriately collected, analyzed, and presented. This article reviews the key attributes of studies involving HRQOL data, discusses best practices for selecting appropriate instruments, and provides guidelines for the assessment, analysis, and presentation of these data. A checklist and a reviewer guide are included to serve as templates for authors and reviewers when submitting and reviewing studies involving HRQOL. CHEST 2020; 158(1S):S49-S56 KEY WORDS: CHEST reviews; health-related quality of life; research-clinical; review General Overview of Study Design Measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), a type of patient-reported outcome (PRO), are increasingly included as outcomes in clinical trials and comparative research studies. They are used to inform patient-centered clinical decision-making and health policy. 1,2 Measures of HRQOL are patients' perspectives of their health and include symptoms, functional status, and satisfaction ratings. An understanding of the effect of medical therapies on HRQOL can help to inform clinical decisions. 3 Measures of HRQOL have detected differences in outcomes of interventions not identified with traditional clinician-reported measures. 4,5 Measuring HRQOL enables providers to understand conditions and treatment effects from the patient's perspective, enhancing their communication with the patient and facilitating shared decision-making. Given the importance of PROs and HRQOL, the American Heart Association and the US Food and Drug Administration both recommend the increased use of these instruments in clinical care and research trials. 3,6 To make appropriate conclusions regarding HRQOL data, instruments must be based on a conceptual framework and show valid and reliable measurement properties. The interpretation of HRQOL data includes psychometric and statistical methods that may be less familiar to researchers and reviewers than techniques used in clinical

show abstract

“…For many exposures, randomized controlled trials are implausible, and well-designed observational studies are the best alternative (Rothman and Greenland, 2005). Clinicians should also judge the degree to which a study simulates clinical practice and whether the results are generalizable to his/her own patient population (Wu et al, 2014). For example, mutations in NCSTN, PSENEN, and PSEN1, which affect the function of g-secretase, have been strongly associated with familial hidradenitis suppurativa in Chinese individuals.…”

Section: Replication Causality and Generalizabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Techniques Made Simple: Interpreting Measures of Association in Clinical Research

Roberts

Ashrafzadeh

Asgari

2019

Journal of Investigative Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To bring evidence-based improvements in medicine and health care delivery to clinical practice, health care providers must know how to interpret clinical research findings and critically evaluate the strength of evidence. This requires an understanding of differences in clinical study designs and the various statistical methods used to identify associations. We aim to provide a foundation for understanding the common measures of association used in epidemiologic studies to quantify relationships between exposures and outcomes, including relative risks, odds ratios, and hazard ratios. We also provide a framework for critically assessing clinical research findings and highlight specific methodologic concerns.

show abstract

Clinician's Checklist for Reading and Using an Article About Patient-Reported Outcomes

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

Convergent Validity of Three Methods for Measuring Postoperative Complications

Convergent Validity of Three Methods for Measuring Postoperative Complications

Considerations for Reporting and Reviewing Studies Including Health-Related Quality of Life

Research Techniques Made Simple: Interpreting Measures of Association in Clinical Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About