Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses --Part 2: Methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Johnston, Bradley C ^a,b   Patrick, Donald L ^c,d   Thorlund, Kristian ^e   Busse, Jason W ^e,g   da Costa, Bruno R ^f   Schünemann, Holger J ^e   Guyatt, Gordon H ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d Seattle Quality of Life Group   (United States)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^g MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; DEPRESSION; EFFECT SIZE; FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; META ANALYSIS; NUMBERS NEEDED TO TREAT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SELF REPORT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BIOASSAY; CLASSIFICATION; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK;

DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; DEPRESSION; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84890516274     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-211     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims 2009, Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services (US), Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf] Accessed 5 Sept, 2013, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry.
2. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Busse JW, Schünemann HJ, Agarwal A, Guyatt GH. Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses-part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes. BMC Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11(1):109.
3. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, Johnston BC, Karanikolas P, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Meerpohl J, Akl EA, Christensen R, Schünemann HJ. Preparing summary of findings tables: continuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66(2):173-183. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001, 23116689.
4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Norris S, Meerpohl J, Djulbegovic B, Alonso-Coello P, Post PN, Busse JW, Glasziou P, Christensen R, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 12: preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66(2):158-172. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012, 22609141.
5. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient-reported outcome measure. BMC Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 27:4-69.
6. Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, Guyatt GH. Interpreting the results of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. BMC Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:62.
7. Guyatt GH, Juniper EF, Walter SD, Griffith LE, Goldstein RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998, 316(7132):690-693. 10.1136/bmj.316.7132.690, 1112685, 9522799.
8. Patient Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Instruments Database http://www.proqolid.org/proqolid/]. Accessed 3 Sept, 2013.
9. Wardlaw JM, Murray V, Berge E, Del Zoppo GJ. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 4:CD000213.
10. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002, 77:371-383. 10.4065/77.4.371, 11936935, Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group.
11. Schünemann HJ, Goldstein R, Mador MJ, McKim D, Stahl E, Puhan MA, Griffith LE, Grant B, Austin P, Collins R, Guyatt GH. A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Europ Respirat J 2005, 25:31-40.
12. Lacasse Y, Goldstein R, Lasserson TJ, Martin S. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, 18(4):CD003793.
13. Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Chapter 9-Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-analyses: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. [Accessed 3 Sept, 2013].
14. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Xie F, Murad MH, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analysis: the application of minimally important difference units. BMC Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:116.
15. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences 1988, Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2.
16. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003, 41:582-592.
17. Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores. Expert Rev Pharmacoenconomics Outcomes Res. 2004, 4(5):515-523.
18. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Da Costa BR, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2012, 65(8):817-826. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.008, 22652347.
19. Anzures-Cabrera J, Sarpatwari A, Higgins JP. Expressing findings from meta-analyses of continuous outcomes in terms of risks. Stat Med 2011, 30(25):2967-2985. 10.1002/sim.4298, 21826697.
20. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NKJ, Beyene J. The ratio of means method as an alternative to mean differences for analyzing continuous outcome variables in meta-analysis: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008, 8(32):1-15. 2244639, 18215293.
21. Furukawa T. From effect size into number needed to treat. Lancet 1999, 353:1680.
22. Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull 1995, 117:167-178.
23. Da Costa BR, Rutjes AW, Johnston BC, Reichenbach S, Nüesch E, Tonia T, Gemperli A, Guyatt GH, Jüni P. Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol 2012, 41(5):1445-1459. 10.1093/ije/dys124, 23045205.
24. Friedrich JO, Adhikari NKJ, Beyene J. Ratio of means for analyzing continuous outcomes in meta-analysis performed as well as mean difference methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:556-564. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.016, 21447428.
25. Thorlund K, Walter SD, Johnston BC, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. Pooling continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a comprehensive review of methods for enhancing interpretability. Res Synth Meth 2011, 2:188-203.
26. Johnston BC, Bandayrel K, Friedrich JO, Akl EA, Da Costa BR, Neumann I, Adhikari NKJ, Alonso-Coello P, Crawford MW, Mustafa RA, Svendrovski A, Thabane L, Tikkinen KAO, Vandvik PO, Guyatt GH. Presentation of continuous outcomes in meta-analysis: a survey of clinicians' understanding and preferences: 21st Cochrane Colloquium 2013, Quebec City, Canada: Cochrane Database Syst Rev, Suppl 1-212, 4.097.
27. Barbui C, Furukawa TA, Cipriani A. Effectiveness of paroxetine in the acute phase treatment of adults with major depression: a systematic re-examination of published and unpublished randomised data. CMAJ 2008, 178(3):296-305. 2211353, 18227449.
28. Furukawa TA. Assessment of mood: guides for clinicians. J Psychosom Res 2010, 68(6):581-589. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.05.003, 20488276.
29. Bandelow B, Baldwin DS, Dolberg OT, Andersen HF, Stein DJ. What is the threshold for symptomatic response and remission for major depressive disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder?. J Clin Psychiatry 2006, 67(1):428-434.
30. Furukawa TA, Akechi T, Azuma H, Okuyama T, Higuchi T. Evidence-based guidelines for interpretation of the Hamilton rating scale for depression. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007, 27(5):531-534. 10.1097/JCP.0b013e31814f30b1, 17873700.
31. Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 1967, 6:278-296. 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1967.tb00530.x, 6080235.
32. Suissa S. Binary methods for continuous outcomes: a paremetric alternative. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:241-248. 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90035-8, 1999683.
33. Analysis of binary data 1989, London: Chapman and Hall, Cox D, Snell E.
34. Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schünemann H. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 3:CD006776.
35. Furukawa TA, Leucht S. How to obtain NNT from Cohen's d: comparison of two methods. PLoS One 2011, 6(4):e19070. 10.1371/journal.pone.0019070, 3083419, 21556361.