Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 238-250

  Hallgreen, Christine E ^a   Mt Isa, Shahrul ^a   Lieftucht, Alfons ^b   Phillips, Lawrence D ^c   Hughes, Diana ^d   Talbot, Susan ^e   Asiimwe, Alex ^f   Downey, Gerald ^e   Genov, Georgy ^g   Hermann, Richard ^h   Noel, Rebecca ⁱ   Peters, Ruth ^a   Micaleff, Alain ^j   Tzoulaki, Ioanna ^a   Ashby, Deborah ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d PFIZER INC   (United States)

^e AMGEN LTD   (United Kingdom)

^f BAYER PHARMA AG   (Germany)

^g EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^h ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^j Serono International SA   (Switzerland)

more..

Author keywords

Benefit risk; Communication; Decision making; Medicines; Pharmacoepidemiology; Review; Visual representation

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

DATA EXTRACTION; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; VISUAL INFORMATION; DECISION MAKING; DEVICES; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PROCEDURES; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION REPORTING SYSTEMS; COMMUNICATION; DATA DISPLAY; DECISION MAKING; PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84959457030     PISSN: 10538569     EISSN: 10991557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3880     Document Type: Review

References (82)

1. Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European Consortium, WP5 benefit-risk integration and representation. [cited 2014]. Available from: http://www.imi-protect.eu/wp5.shtml.
2. Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, et al. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2014; 23(7): 667-678 PubMed PMID: 24821575.
3. EMA Benefit-Risk Methodology Project Team. Work package 1 report: description of the current practice of benefit-risk assessment for centralised procedure products in the EU regulatory network. 2011 Contract No.: EMA/227124/2011.
4. Fischhoff B, Brewer NT, Downs JS. Communicating Risk and Benefits: An Evidence-based User's Guide: Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2011 14.12.2011.
5. CTSpedia. [cited 2013]. Available from: https://www.ctspedia.org.
6. Drugs Box. [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.thedrugsbox.co.uk.
7. DataViz: improving data visualisation for the public sector. [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.improving-visualisation.org.
8. Spiegelhalter D. Understanding Uncertainty website 2010. Available from: http://understandinguncertainty.org.
9. FlowingData, 2007 [cited 2013]. Available from: http://flowingdata.com.
10. Few S. Perceptual Edge, 2004 [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.perceptualedge.com.
11. Tufte E. The work of Edward Tufte and Graphics Press. [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte.
12. McCandless D. Information is Beautiful, 2013 [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net.
13. CIRS. Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science website. [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.cirsci.org.
14. Rosling H. Gapminder. [cited 2013]. (http://www.gapminder.org).
15. Wickens CD, Lee J, Liu YD, Cordon-Becker S. An introduction to human factors engineering. 2ed: Pearson; 2004.
16. Cleveland WS, Mcgill R. Graphical perception-theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79(387): 531-554 PubMed PMID: WOS:A1984TK97500006. English.
17. Carswell CM. Choosing specifiers-an evaluation of the basic tasks model of graphical perception. Hum Factors 1992; 34(5): 535-554. PubMed PMID: WOS:A1992KA54500003. English.
18. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13(6): 608-618.
19. Armstrong K, FitzGerald G, Schwartz JS, Ubel PA. Using survival curve comparisons to inform patient decision making can a practice exercise improve understanding? J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16(7): 482-485.
20. Armstrong K. Methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(34): 4208-4214.
21. Bennett DL, Dharia CV, Ferguson KJ, Okon AE. Patient-physician communication: informed consent for imaging-guided spinal injections. JACR J Am College Radiol 2009; 6(1): 38-44.
22. Bostrom A, Anselin L, Farris J. Visualizing seismic risk and uncertainty: a review of related research. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1128: 29-40.
23. Brust-Renck PG, Royer CE, Reyna VF. Communicating numerical risk: human factors that aid understanding in health care. Rev Hum Factors and Ergon 2013; 8(1): 235-276.
24. Brynne L, Bresell A, Sjögren N. Effective visualization of integrated knowledge and data to enable informed decisions in drug development and translational medicine. J Transl Med 2013; 11: 250.
25. Burkell J. What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92(2): 200-208.
26. Burkiewicz JS, Vesta KS, Hume AL. Improving effectiveness in communicating risk to patients. Consultant Pharmacist 2008; 23(1): 37-43.
27. Cleveland WS. The Elements of Graphing Data. Hobart Press: New Jersey, 1994.
28. Cleveland WS, McGill R. Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 1985; 229(4716): 828-833.
29. de Bruin WB, Stone ER, Gibson JM, Fischbeck PS, Shoraka MB. The effect of communication design and recipients' numeracy on responses to UXO risk. J Risk Res 2013; 16(8): 981-1004 PubMed PMID: WOS:000325913900004.
30. Dolan JG, Qian F, Veazie PJ. How well do commonly used data presentation formats support comparative effectiveness evaluations? Med Decis Making 2012; 32(6): 840-850 PubMed PMID: WOS:000311802700011. English.
31. Elmore JG, Ganschow PS, Geller BM. Communication between patients and providers and informed decision making. J Nat Canser Inst Monogr 2010; 2010(41): 204-209.
32. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 2002; 324(7341): 827-830.
33. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103(19): 1436-1443.
34. Fischhoff B. Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues Sci Technol 2012; 28(4): 63-70.
35. Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R. Graph literacy: a cross-cultural comparison. Med Decis Making 2011; 31(3): 444-457.
36. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Mueller A-S, Broschinski S, Politi MC. Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol 2012; 31(3): 286-296 PubMed PMID: WOS:000303629100003.
37. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003; 327(7417): 741-744.
38. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychological Sci Publ Interest Suppl 2008; 8(2): 53-96.
39. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Chan L, Jackson R, Wells S, Kenealy T. Patients prefer pictures to numbers to express cardiovascular benefit from treatment. Ann Fam Med 2008; 6(3): 213-217.
40. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73(3): 448-455.
41. Henneman L, Oosterwijk JC, Van Asperen CJ, et al. The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial. BMC Med Inf Decis Making 2013; 13(1): art. no. 55.
42. Hird M. A simple paper-based patient decision aid. Evid Based Med 2008; 13(6): 166.
43. Hollands GJ, Marteau TM. The impact of using visual images of the body within a personalized health risk assessment: an experimental study. Br J Health Psychol 2013; 18(2): 263-278.
44. Kasper J, Heesen C, Köpke S, Mühlhauser I, Lenz M. Why not?-communicating stochastic information by use of unsorted frequency pictograms-a randomised controlled trial. Psychosoc Med 2011; 8: Doc08.
45. Keller C, Siegrist M, Visschers V. Effect of risk ladder format on risk perception in high- and low-numerate individuals. Risk Anal 2009; 29(9): 1255-1264.
46. Kosslyn SM. Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. Oxford University Press: New York, 2006.
47. Kurz-Milcke E, Gigerenzer G, Martignon L. Transparency in risk communication: graphical and analog tools. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008; 1128: 18-28.
48. Lee DH, Mehta MD. Evaluation of a visual risk communication tool: effects on knowledge and perception of blood transfusion risk. Transfusion 2003; 43(6): 779-787.
49. Lipkus IM. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(5): 696-713.
50. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG. The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999; (25): 149-163.
51. Man-Son-Hing M, O'Connor AM, Drake E, Biggs J, Hum V, Laupacis A. The effect of qualitative vs. quantitative presentation of probability estimates on patient decision-making: a randomized trial. Health Expect 2002; 5(3): 246-255.
52. Martin RW. Communicating the risk of side effects to rheumatic patients. Rheumatic Dis Clinics North Am 2012; 38(4): 653-662.
53. Norton JD. A longitudinal model and graphic for benefit-risk analysis, with case study. Drug Inf J 2011; 45(6): 741-747.
54. Okan Y, Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET, Maldonado A. Individual differences in graph literacy: overcoming denominator neglect in risk comprehension. J Behav Decis Making 2012; 25(4): 390-401 PubMed PMID: WOS:000307165400006.
55. Politi MC, Han PKJ, Col NF. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(5): 681-695.
56. Potter K. Methods for presenting statistical information: the box plot. In Visualization of Large and Unstructured Data Sets, GI-Edition Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) S-4, Hagen H, Kerren A, and Dannenmann P (Eds), 2006, pp. 97-106.
57. Price M, Cameron R, Butow P. Communicating risk information: the influence of graphical display format on quantitative information perception-accuracy, comprehension and preferences. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 69(1-3): 121-128.
58. Rakow T. Differences in belief about likely outcomes account for differences in doctors' treatment preferences: but what accounts for the differences in belief? Qual Health Care 2001; 10(suppl. 1): i44-i49.
59. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA. Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 2001; 21(6): 459-467.
60. Siegel CA. Review article: explaining risks of inflammatory bowel disease therapy to patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33(1): 23-32.
61. Smith Andrew F. Discussion of risk pervades doctor-patient communication. BMJ 2002; 325: 548.
62. Sprague D, Russo JE, Lavallie DL, Buchwald DS. Influence of framing and graphic format on comprehension of risk information among American Indian tribal college students. J Cancer Educ 2012; 27(4): 752-758.
63. Spence I. No humble pie: the origins and usage of a statistical chart. J Educational Behav Stat 2005; 30(4): 353-368.
64. Steiner MJ, Trussell J, Mehta N, Condon S, Subramaniam S, Bourne D. Communicating contraceptive effectiveness: a randomized controlled trial to inform a World Health Organization family planning handbook. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195(1): 85-91.
65. Tait AR, Voepel-Lewis T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A. The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: a comparison between text, tables, and graphics. J Health Commun 2010; 15(5): 487-501.
66. Tan JKH, Benbasat I. The effectiveness of graphical presentation for information extraction-a cumulative experimental approach. Decis Sci 1993; 24(1): 167-191 PubMed PMID: WOS:A1993KU50500010. English.
67. Tufte ER. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (2nd edn). Graphics Press: Cheshire, Conn, 2001.
68. van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zwinkels T, de Brock B, Hillege H. ADDIS: a decision support system for evidence-based medicine. Decis Support Syst 2013; 55(2): 459-475.
69. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons K. Formats for improving risk communication in medical tradeoff decisions. J Health Commun 2006; 11(2): 167-182 PubMed PMID: 16537286 Epub 2006/03/16. eng.
70. Waters EA, Weinstein ND, Colditz GA, Emmons KM. Reducing aversion to side effects in preventive medical treatment decisions. J Exp Psychol Appl 2007; 13(1): 11-21.
71. Wilhelms EA, Reyna VF. Effective ways to communicate risk and benefit. The virtual mentor: VM 2013; 15(1): 34-41.
72. EMA Benefit-Risk Methodology Project Team. Work package 4 report: benefit-risk tools and processes. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2012/03/WC500123819.pdf: EMA, 2012 EMA/297405/2012.
73. QNEXA, Vivus, Inc: hearing before the FDA Advisory Committee, 2010. [Cited March 2012].
74. Sibutramine, Abbot Laboratories: hearing before the FDA Advisory Committee, 2010. [Cited March 2013]
75. Nixon R, Stoeckert I, Hodgson G, Pears J, Tzoulaki I, Montero D. Benefit-Risk Wave 1 case study report: natalizumab. London: 2013 2013 01/03/2013. Report No.: 1:b:iv.
76. Rogers S. UK plastic surgery statistics: the Guardian, 2012 [cited 2013]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jan/30/plastic-surgery-statistics-uk.
77. Man-Son-Hing M, Laupacis A. Balancing the risks of stroke and upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding in older patients with atrial fibrillation. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162(5): 541-550.
78. Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, et al. Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011 Feb; 89(2): 217-224 PubMed PMID: 21178990 Epub 2010/12/24. eng.
79. Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Asiimwe A, et al. Review of visualisation methods for the representation of benefit-risk assessment of medication: Stage 2 of 2. http://www.imi-protect.eu/benefitsRep.shtml: 2013 15/02/2013. Report No.: 2:ii.
80. Duke S. Best practices recommendations 2012 [ cited 2013]. Available from: https://www.ctspedia.org/do/view/CTSpedia/BestPractices.
81. Buja A, Cook D, Swayne DF. Interactive high-dimensional data visualization. J Comput Graph Stat 1996; 5(1): 78-99.
82. Coplan PM, Noel RA, Levitan BS, Ferguson J, Mussen F. Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit-risk balance of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011; 89(2): 312-315 PubMed PMID: 21160469.