Application of a bayesian graded response model to characterize areas of disagreement between clinician and patient grading of symptomatic adverse events

被引:3
|
作者
Atkinson T.M. [1 ]
Reeve B.B. [2 ]
Dueck A.C. [3 ]
Bennett A.V. [4 ]
Mendoza T.R. [5 ]
Rogak L.J. [1 ]
Basch E. [1 ,4 ]
Li Y. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 641 Lexington Ave., 7th Floor, New York, 10022, NY
[2] Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
[3] Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ
[4] University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
[5] University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Clinician-patient agreement; Item response theory; Neoplasms; Patient-reported outcomes;
D O I
10.1186/s41687-018-0086-x
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Traditional concordance metrics have shortcomings based on dataset characteristics (e.g., multiple attributes rated, missing data); therefore it is necessary to explore supplemental approaches to quantifying agreement between independent assessments. The purpose of this methodological paper is to apply an Item Response Theory (IRT)-based framework to an existing dataset that included unidimensional clinician and multiple attribute patient ratings of symptomatic adverse events (AEs), and explore the utility of this method in patient-reported outcome (PRO) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research. Methods: Data were derived from a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study examining the validity of a measurement system (PRO-CTCAE) for patient self-reporting of AEs in cancer patients receiving treatment (N = 940). AEs included 13 multiple attribute patient-reported symptoms that had corresponding unidimensional clinician AE grades. A Bayesian IRT Model was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between raters. The posterior mean values of the model-fitted item responses were calculated to represent model-based AE grades obtained from patients and clinicians. Results: Model-based AE grades showed a general pattern of clinician underestimation relative to patient-graded AEs. However, the magnitude of clinician underestimation was associated with AE severity, such that clinicians’ underestimation was more pronounced for moderate/very severe model-estimated AEs, and less so with mild AEs. Conclusions: The Bayesian IRT approach reconciles multiple symptom attributes and elaborates on the patterns of clinician-patient non-concordance beyond that provided by traditional metrics. This IRT-based technique may be used as a supplemental tool to detect and characterize nuanced differences in patient-, clinician-, and proxy-based ratings of HRQOL and patient-centered outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641. Registered 1 December 2009. © The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 3 条
  • [1] Concordance between clinician-rated adverse symptom events and patient grading using the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE): application of a Bayesian graded item response model
    Atkinson, Thomas M.
    Li, Yuelin
    Mitchell, Sandra A.
    Dueck, Amylou C.
    Mendoza, Tito R.
    Bennett, Antonia V.
    Rogak, Lauren
    Castro, Kathleen
    Reeve, Bryce B.
    Basch, Ethan
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2013, 22
  • [2] Clinician-Clinician Agreement in Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in Cancer Patients: A Graded Response Model Approach (MT)
    Li, Yuelin
    Atkinson, Thomas
    Baser, Raymond
    Basch, Ethan
    QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 20 : 46 - 46
  • [3] Disagreement between patient- and physician-reported outcomes on symptomatic adverse events as poor prognosis in patients treated with first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of Phase II QUACK trial
    Ooki, Akira
    Morita, Satoshi
    Tsuji, Akihito
    Iwamoto, Shigeyoshi
    Hara, Hiroki
    Tanioka, Hiroaki
    Satake, Hironaga
    Kataoka, Masato
    Kotaka, Masahito
    Kagawa, Yoshinori
    Nakamura, Masato
    Shingai, Tatsushi
    Ishikawa, Masashi
    Miyake, Yasuhiro
    Suto, Takeshi
    Hashiguchi, Yojiro
    Yabuno, Taichi
    Ando, Masahiko
    Sakamoto, Junichi
    Yamaguchi, Kensei
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (24): : 9419 - 9430