Visualization formats of Patient-Reported Outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine A. C. Albers ◽  
Itske Fraterman ◽  
Iris Walraven ◽  
Erica Wilthagen ◽  
Sanne B. Schagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Measurement Scale ◽  
Line Graphs ◽  
Clinical Interpretation ◽  
Graphic Visualization ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND The use of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. However, there is no consensus on which graphic visualization format of PRO scores is most suitable. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization of PROs in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, including preferences, interpretation accuracy, and guidance for clinical interpretation of PRO scores. METHODS We extracted studies published between 2000 and 2020 from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo and Medline. Studies included patients ≥18 years old from daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access or that did not specifically describe PRO visualization were excluded. Outcome measures were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation. RESULTS We included 26 out of 789 papers for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PRO scores over time. Clinicians’ interpretation accuracy was similar among graph formats. Scores were most often compared with patients’ own previous scores; to guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different add-ons improved graph interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels and brief definitions. CONCLUSIONS Although we found no predominant format for graphic visualization of PRO scores, straightforward formats like bar charts and line graphs were preferred by both patients and clinicians. Additionally, detailed clarification of graph content is essential.

A relevant study was missed in our systematic review on the impact of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 965-966
Author(s):  
J. M. Valderas ◽  
A. Kotzeva ◽  
M. Espallargues ◽  
G. Guyatt ◽  
C. E. Ferrans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Relevant Study ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Valderas ◽  
A. Kotzeva ◽  
M. Espallargues ◽  
G. Guyatt ◽  
C. E. Ferrans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals When Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice, the Measure Matters: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e299-e306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire F. Snyder ◽  
Joseph M. Herman ◽  
Sharon M. White ◽  
Brandon S. Luber ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Careful Selection ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

The authors' results suggest that, when using PROs in clinical practice for patient management, the PRO measure matters in terms of usefulness to patients. The authors advise careful selection of the PRO measure best suited for the particular clinical practice application.

Enhanced Recovery Experience After Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes

2019 ◽  
pp. 108-112
Author(s):  
Muath Alturkistani ◽  
Ali Alahmari ◽  
Hussam Alhumaidi ◽  
Mohammed Alharbi ◽  
Alhanouf Alqernas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Harmeet S. Bawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information System ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Measurement Information System

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.METHODSStudies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.RESULTSTwenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.CONCLUSIONSThere has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.

Treating Knee Osteoarthritis With Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid Combination Therapy: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652199801
Author(s):  
Michael R. Baria ◽  
W. Kelton Vasileff ◽  
James Borchers ◽  
Alex DiBartola ◽  
David C. Flanigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Preparation Technique ◽  
Randomized Studies ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis. The focus of previous studies has compared their efficacy against each other as monotherapy. However, a new trend of combining these 2 injections has emerged in an attempt to have a synergistic effect. Purpose: To systematically review the clinical literature examining the combined use of PRP + HA. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed and Embase. The following search terms were used: knee osteoarthritis AND platelet rich plasma AND hyaluronic acid. The review was performed by 2 independent reviewers who applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and independently extracted data, including methodologic scoring, PRP preparation technique, HA composition, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results: A total of 431 articles were screened, 12 reviewed in full, and 8 included in the final analysis: 2 case series, 3 comparative, and 3 randomized studies. Average follow-up was 9 months. The modified Coleman Methodology Score was 38.13 ± 13.1 (mean ± SD). Combination therapy resulted in improved PROs in all studies. Of the comparative and randomized studies, 2 demonstrated that combination therapy was superior to HA alone. However, when PRP alone was used as the control arm (4 studies), combination therapy was not superior to PRP alone. Conclusion: Combination therapy with PRP + HA improves PROs and is superior to HA alone but is not superior to PRP alone.

scholarly journals Correction to: Robotic‑arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junren Zhang ◽  
Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou ◽  
Nathan Ng ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Philip M. Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Improved Accuracy

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x

scholarly journals AB0116 THE EFFECTS OF DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES; PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1087.1-1087
Author(s):  
M. Van den Dikkenberg, Msc ◽  
N. Luurssen-Masurel ◽  
M. Kuijper ◽  
M. R. Kok ◽  
P. De Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:The need to involve patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increases, since PROs quantify patient relevant outcomes. Although PROs have been incorporated in the core-outcome sets in clinical trials, knowledge about the treatment effects on these PROs is scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), of any type, on relevant PRO domains mentioned in the ICHOM standard set. This might support rheumatologists and RA patients during treatment decisions.Objectives:To get insight in the treatment effects of DMARDs of any type on three PRO domains that matter to patients (pain, activity limitations and fatigue).Methods:A systematic review was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Included were all studies that were published before August 2019 and showed DMARD treatment effects in RA on PROs that are part of the ICHOM standard set. Three Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for the PRO domains pain, activity limitations and fatigue. Preliminary results of DMARDs (in)directly compared to placebo were visualized by forest plots using R.Results:The search strategy yielded n=5974 articles. After selection was performed by 2 independent researchers, n=70 individual articles representing n=53 studies were extracted, over the three PRO domains; pain (n=31), activity limitations (n=41) and fatigue (n=21). In all RCTs, PROs were only reported as secondary or tertiary endpoints. In figure 1, we show the effects on PROs for any type of DMARD investigated compared to placebo. Overall, DMARDs show a greater reduction in pain (standardized mean difference (SMD); -0.97 – -0.22) and most of them in activity limitations (SMD; -0.81 – 0.56). In fatigue, this clear direction is lacking (SMD; -0.86 – 3.5). csDMARDs and anti-TNF seem to perform slightly, but nog significantly, worse than other bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the first two domains.Conclusion:Within in this systematic review we report a reduction for DMARDs of any type on the domains of pain and activity limitations compared to placebo. However, results are still preliminary and should be interpreted with care. A more comprehensive network analysis might give a more definitive answer which DMARD performs best.Figure 1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document