Background
Methods
Search strategy
Selection criteria
Data extraction
Box 1 Information extracted from review articles
-
Study aim.
-
Date window for the search.
-
Did the review article include papers published before Feb 2013 (CONSORT-PRO publication)?
-
Number of study publications reviewed.
-
Disease area/s of included papers.
-
Study selection criteria.
-
Terminology/definition of what the review article claimed to assess using CONSORT-PRO. Where multiple terms were used, we extracted the term described in the Methods, or failing that, the Results tables.
-
The checklist used to review the included studies.
-
Any CONSORT-PRO items that were missing from the scoring sheet/evaluation.
-
Specific instructions that reviewers were given to assess the included studies.
-
How were the included studies scored, e.g., by checklist item, total score, both?
-
If a total score was used, what was the best possible total score?
-
Key concerns with the checklist used (if any), i.e., whether any items from the full checklist were omitted, were items weighted if a total score was used, etc.
-
Did the review article authors justify their modifications to the checklist for evaluation purposes?
-
Did the review article authors review protocols of the included studies using SPIRIT-PRO?
-
Did the review article mention SPIRIT-PRO [20] at any point?
-
Summary of the results for individual CONSORT-PRO items; i.e., what items scored best or worst?
-
Percentage of studies addressing each checklist item.
-
Summary of CONSORT-PRO total scores.
-
Other comments on results.
-
Conclusions from the article.
-
Recommendations given by the review article for how to improve reporting or reduce waste due to poor reporting.
-
Did the review article make any judgements about what was a “good” CONSORT-PRO score?
-
Did the publishing journal include a recommendation to use CONSORT-PRO in their author instructions? [17].
Results
Characteristic | Number of studies (N = 14) |
---|---|
Year of publication | |
2015 | 2 |
2016 | 3 |
2017 | 3 |
2018 | 1 |
2019 | 3 |
2020 | 2 |
Disease or condition of focus | |
Oncology | 8 |
Haematological malignancies | 1 |
Cardiology | 1 |
General surgery | 1 |
Osteoporosis | 1 |
Tendinopathy | 1 |
Various | 1 |
Authors’ description of what was assessed using CONSORT-PRO criteria | |
Adherence to CONSORT-PRO | 5 |
Reporting quality | 3 |
Methodological quality | 2 |
Completeness | 2 |
PRO reporting | 1 |
Reporting standards | 1 |
CONSORT-PRO criteria used to review studies | |
Full checklist with all criteria, minimal (justified) to no modifications | 6 |
Modified checklist with few criteria excluded, however excluded criteria were extension items | 1 |
Modified checklist with 3 or more criteria excluded | 4 |
Five extension items only | 3 |
Scoring instructions for assessing papers using the CONSORT-PRO criteria | |
Scoring instructions detailed | 9 |
Scoring instructions omitted or unclear | 5 |
How CONSORT-PRO scoring was reported | |
Individual checklist item scores only | 5 |
Total score only | 0 |
Checklist items and total score | 9 |
Did the review article make any judgements about what was a "good" overall CONSORT-PRO score? | |
No | 13 |
Yes | 1 |
Variation in use of CONSORT-PRO as an evaluation tool
Review publication & reporting checklist used | Bylicki et al. (2014) | Chen et al. (2020) | Dos Santos et al. (2017) | Efficace et al. (2015) | Evans et al. (2019) | Kyte et al. (2019) | Le Blanc et al. (2020)a | Mack et al. (2018)a | Martini et al. (2019)a | Mercieca-Bebber, et al. (2017) QLR | Mercieca-Bebber et al. (2017) JPRO | Stevens et al. (2016) | Van Der Weijst et al. (2019) | Weingartner et al. (2016) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Publication sample reviewed | 124 Phase III medical oncology RCTs published 2007–2011 | 37 RTCs of cardiac catheter ablation of the heart, published 2000–2019 | 22 molecular targeted therapy RCTs for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, published 2005–2015 | 557 RCTs in the PROMOTION registry, published 2004–2014 | 4 UK RCTs lateral elbow tendinopathy, published 2003–2014 | 99 cancer RCTs on NIHR UK portfolio 2001–2014, published by 2017 | 30 studies relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, pre and post 2013 | 23 studies of exercise management for osteoporosis published, 1998–2017 | 48 studies Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, published 1999–2016 | 66 RCTs published post CONSORT-PRO; 2013–2015 (case//control) | 36 Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs published 2000- Feb 2016 | 20 general surgery RCTs, published 2007–2012 | 85 stage IIIB and/or IV NSCLC RCTs, published 2007–2017 | 30 advanced cancer RCTs, Published 2010-March 2013 |
P1b. PRO identified in abstract | 28% | 62% | 41% | 81% | 1/4 | 32% | 73.3% | 91.3% | 19% | 96%//59% | 69% | 25.7% | 60% | 30% |
- as primary or secondary outcome | 38%//38% | 47% | ||||||||||||
(2a) Background and rationale for PRO assessment | 43% | 43% | 41% | N/A | N/A | 34% | 60% | 34.8% | N/A | 85%//93% | 42% | 25.7% | N/A | 17% |
P2b. The PRO hypothesis should be stated & relevant domains identified, if applicable | 26% | 8% | 4.5% | 17% | 0/4 | 28% | 10% | 39.1% hypothesis; 82.6% hypothesis with domains | 15% | 73%//23% (including domains: 50%//15%) | 19% | 14.3% | 13% | 13% |
(4a) Eligibility—if PROs were used in eligibility or stratification criteria | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 2% | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0% | 0% of eligible | 0% | N/A | N/A |
P6a. Evidence of PRO instrument validity and reliability should be provided or cited if available, | 36% | 32% | 55% | 76% | 0/4 in UK population, 2/4 in another population | 32% | 50% | 47.8% | 95% | 92%//73% | 64% | 20% | 6% | 70% |
including:-The person completing the PRO | 38% | 32% | 24% | N/A | 56.7% | 60.9% | Instrument administration: 60% | 81%//78% | 53% | 54.3% | ||||
-methods of data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other) | 16% | 0% | 1/4 | 16.7% | 8.7% | 35%//25% | 6% | 42.9% | ||||||
(7a) How sample size was determined – not required for PRO unless it is a primary study outcome | N/A | 100% of RCTs with primary endpoints (n = 1) | N/A | N/A | N/A | 63% | N/A | 16.7% | N/A | 67%//63% | 0% of eligible | N/A | N/A | 0% |
P12a. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data are explicitly stated | 37% | 32% | 32% | 20% | 0/4 | 32% | 23.3% | 13% | 21% | 77%//50% | 39% | 2.9% | 18% | 27% |
(13a) The number of PRO outcome data -at baseline | 61% | 16% | 50% | N/A | N/A | 27% | 40% | 91.3% | 39% | 73%//68% | 50% | N/A | N/A | 57% |
-and subsequent time points should be made transparent | 70% | 50% | N/A | N/A | 98.7% | N/A | 81%//73% | 47% | 13.1% | N/A | ||||
(15) A table showing baseline PRO data when collected | 40% | 89% | 32% | N/A | N/A | 25% | 53.3% | 95.7% | N/A | 73%//85% | 36% | 31.4% | N/A | 17% |
(16) For each group, -the number of participants (denominator) included in each group analysis | 48% | 49% | 55% | N/A | N/A | 40% | N/A | 100% | Missing data reported: 79% | 81%//73% | 64% | 13.1% | N/A | 60% |
-and whether the analysis was by original assigned groups—required for PRO results | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |||||||
(17a) For each primary and secondary outcome:- results for each group | 43% | 65% | 41% | N/A | N/A | 30% | 73.3% | 91.3% | N/A | 92%//85% | 72% | N/A | N/A | 67% |
- the estimated effect size, and its precision (such as 95% confidence interval)—for multidimensional PROs results from each domain and time point | N/A | N/A | N/A | 34.8% | N/A | 81%//75% | 44% | N/A | N/A | |||||
(18) Results of any other analyses performed, including subgroup analyses and adjusted analyses, distinguishing pre-specified from exploratory—including PRO analyses, where relevant | N/A | 100% (4/4 applicable studies) | N/A | N/A | N/A | 12% | N/A | 21.7% | N/A | 54%//45% | 39% | 0% | N/A | 7% |
P20/21. PRO-specific -limitations | 35% | 35% | 18% | 46% | 0/4 | 24% | 26.7% | 34.8% | N/A | 77%//75% | 36% | 22.6% | 31% | 23% |
-and implications for generalizability and clinical practice | 65.2% | PRO results discussed: 64% | 81%//83% | 53% | ||||||||||
(22) PRO data should be interpreted in relation to clinical outcomes including survival data, where relevant | 60% | 30% | 50% | N/A | N/A | 31% | 93.3% | 82.6% | N/A | 81%//85% | 69% | 74.3% | N/A | 53% |
Item-level evaluations using the CONSORT-PRO guidelines
Lead author, year | Study aim as stated by the authors | Summary of study’s conclusion | Summary of the results for individual CONSORT-PRO items; i.e., what items scored best or worst, as stated by the authors | Summary of CONSORT-PRO total scores | Recommendations for improving reporting or reducing waste due to poor reporting, as stated by the authors |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bylicki (2015) | The aim was to (1) evaluate the quality of PROs reporting in recent oncology RCT reports, according to the 2013 PROs-specific CONSORT extension, thereby establishing the current adequacy of PROs reporting using the 11-point PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS). (2) investigate manuscripts’ characteristics associated with better quality in PROs reporting | PROs were often poorly reported. The main exception was where PROs were reported in separate PROs-dedicated manuscripts | 124 articles were included in the review. Ten manuscripts reported correctly all five extensions of the CONSORT statement (P1b, P2b, P6a, P12a, P20/21). The most frequently reported item included in the 2013 CONSORT extension was the identification of the PROs relevant domains (item P2b, correctly reported in 65% of the RCTs). A correct description of the prespecified PROs hypothesis was reported in 26% of the reports, and the description of the analysis power in 10% of the reports. The identification of the PROs in the abstract as a primary or secondary outcome (item P1b) was done in 28% of the reports. Also, 16% reported methods for PROs data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other). Statistical approaches for managing missing data (item P12a) were adequately described in 37% of RCTs. Adequate description of each domain result for multidimensional PROs (item E17a) was found in 43% of manuscripts. PROs-specific limitations (item P20/21) were discussed in 35% of manuscripts. Among the 11 items included in the PRORQS, none was correctly reported by more than 70% of RCT reports | The mean PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS) for all items was 5.0 on an 11-point scale [range: 0–11, 95% CI of the mean 4.4–5.5], including 17 publications (14%) having a PRORQS ≤ 1. Four trials (3%) were found with a score of 11. All were reported in a secondary PROs-specific manuscript, and three were pivotal trials with positive results | Although not mentioned in the CONSORT extension guidelines,… oncology RCT (publications) should provide a short report of PROs in the primary manuscript, with a more exhaustive subsequent publication in a dedicated PROs-focused manuscript |
Chen (2020) | 1. How many RCTs of cardiac catheter ablation (CCA) include an assessment of PROMs, how frequently was this performed and which tools were used? What is the demography of patients included in RCTs of CCA and which patients report PROMs? What are the reporting standard of studies that include PROMs? | The current standard of PROMs collection and reporting in RCTs of CCA is poor. Greater use of validated PRO measures should better assist clinical decision making | The highest adherence was to the extension item (E15 – report baseline PROs) at 89%. This is a non-specific part of the CONSORT-PRO score, whereas the highest adherence to a specific CONSORT-PRO part was item P1b (identify PRO as a primary or secondary endpoint in the abstract) (62%) | No single study satisfied all the items and there was a wide range of adherence from 1 to 11 out of 14 individual criteria Studies were categorised into high (total scores of 6–11/11), medium (3–5/11) and low (1–2/11) adherence to CONSORT-PRO standards. 14 studies had high adherence scores; another 14 had medium adherence; and 9 had low adherence scores | Ensuring that RCTs include reliable PROMs which matter to patients is an important consideration in delivering value and reducing research waste where important outcomes relevant to users of research are not being assessed |
Dos Santos (2017) | This review evaluates the methodological quality of PROs reporting according to the 2013 CONSORT-PROs reporting guidelines in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating molecular targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) | Methodology of PROs assessment needs to be improved with a clear definition of the endpoint and better reporting, monitoring and analyzing to avoid missing data | The most frequently reported items for PRO-specific extension and elaboration were, respectively: the evidence of instrument validity of PROs (55%) and the number of participants included in each analysis required for PROs results (55%). PROs as a primary or secondary outcome in the abstract and/or rationale for the assessment of PROs were described in 41% of publications. However, no publication reported the power of the PROs analysis and only one proposed the impact of the benefits. Most articles (82%) correctly reported the reference of the PROs instrument but no data on the collection methods were reported and only 1/3 described a statistical approach for dealing with missing data. The assessment of PROs at each time point was documented in 50% of the cases and a summary of the results was provided only in 32%. Results from each domain for multidimensional PROs were cited in 41%. In the discussion, half of the publications offered an interpretation of PRO data in relation to clinical outcomes but only 4 (18%) discussed the specific limitations of PROs and the implications for generalizability | The mean score for all items was 4.5 on an 11-point scale (range: 0–11), only 1 publication had a maximum score corresponding to a secondary report | In conclusion, PROs have become an essential endpoint with a strong impact on clinical benefit in patients with mRCC, and they should be increasingly included in RCTs. However, the methodology of PROs assessment needs to be improved with a clear definition of the endpoint that is being used and better reporting with particular attention to monitoring and analyzing in order to avoid missing data |
Efficace (2015) | The main objective of this study was to identify the number of RCTs that have included a PRO endpoint across a wide range of cancer specialties and to evaluate completeness of their PRO reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Secondary objectives were to describe level of reporting by type of PRO endpoint and cancer disease site and investigate which factors are associated with a higher level of reporting | Investigators are encouraged to pay special attention to the CONSORT-PRO items most in need of improvement found in current work to facilitate the use of PRO data to robustly inform patient-centered care in oncology | The two most frequently reported PRO CONSORT items were that of reporting in the abstract that PRO was an outcome of the study (N = 452, 81%) and reporting the use of well-validated PRO instruments (N = 424, 76%). The remaining four items, however, were documented in less than 50% of the RCTs with less than one third reporting a PRO hypothesis (N = 93, 17%), details on statistical approaches for dealing with PRO missing data (N = 113, 20%) and methods for PRO data collection (N = 133, 24%). Overall, less than 5% of RCTs documented all items of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Level of reporting was statistically significant higher in RCTs with PRO as a primary endpoint in four (P1b, P2b, P6aa, P20/21) out of six items (Table 2 of Efficace et al.). A trend toward a greater completeness of reporting for RCTs with PRO as primary endpoint was found. For example, the percentage of RCTs addressing only two items was 58% and 35% for RCTs with PRO as secondary or primary endpoint, respectively | N/R | Also, previous work has shown that editorial policies of journals may vary in how they implement and enforce the original CONSORT statement.23 It is important that future studies will investigate if and how different editorial approaches in endorsing the CONSORT-PRO extension will reflect on accuracy of reporting |
Evans (2019) | This study aimed to systematically assess the outcome measures used for measuring PROMs in lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) in a UK population and to assess the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using PROMs in LET | Reporting of outcome measures in lateral elbow tendinopathy RCTs in the UK does not conform to the CONSORT-PRO guidance | Of the 4 studies included in the review, one study identified a PRO as an endpoint in the abstract. The 4 other CONSORT-PRO Extension items were not addressed by any of the 4 RCTs | N/R; however, 3 of the 4 included studies did not address any of the recommended CONSORT-PRO items, scoring 0/5. The 4th study only addressed 1 item | With the increasing use of PROMs used as primary outcomes in clinical trials, it is, therefore, relevant that their use is rigorously assessed |
Kyte (2019) | We conducted a systematic evaluation of PRO protocol content and reporting across a cohort of completed international cancer trials | Widespread, non reporting of PRO data means that valuable information is not available for decision making. These deficiencies must be urgently addressed to ensure these data are made available to enhance clinical outcomes for the benefit of future patients | Commonly omitted CONSORT-PRO Extension items included description of the PRO hypothesis/objectives (missing in 71.8% of publications), evidence of the validity and reliability of the PRO instrument(s) (missing in 67.8%), detail regarding the number of PRO data collected at baseline and subsequent time points (missing in 72.8%), and description of the statistical approaches used to deal with missing PRO data (missing in 67.8%) | Where a PRO was the primary outcome, publications included an adjusted mean of 62.1% of CONSORT-2010 items and 41.1% CONSORT-PRO items. Where a PRO was the secondary outcome, protocols included an adjusted mean of 63.3% of CONSORT-2010 items and 16.9% CONSORT-PRO checklist items | That researchers utilize the recently published SPIRIT-PRO Extension [37] alongside the original SPIRIT 2013 statement [28, 42] when developing protocols for trials including PROs. For reporting, the use of the CONSORT-PRO [30] Extension alongside CONSORT[43]. Evidence suggests that the use of such checklists may be valuable in driving up standards of PRO research [44]. Funders and journals should endorse and enforce the use of SPIRIT-PRO and CONSORT-PRO and to promote and facilitate prompt publication of PRO findings, preferably as part of the main trial report. Finally, all stakeholders should utilize the growing range of suitable open access PRO training resources and guidelines to support high-quality PRO research and dissemination |
LeBlanc (2020) | The purpose of this review is to summarize what is known about PROs in people living with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), and to evaluate PRO reporting quality using the CONSORT-PRO Extension guidelines | The format results were reported in made it difficult to describe prevalence, severity or patterns of symptoms and HRQOL issues. Future studies which incorporate PROs would benefit from following existing guidelines to ensure that study evidence and conclusions can be fully assessed by readers, clinicians and policy makers | The most commonly adhered to items from the CONSORT-PRO criteria checklist included ‘PRO data are interpreted in relation to clinical outcomes’ (93%) ‘Assessment timepoints specified’ (90%), ‘PRO identified in abstract as primary or secondary outcome’ (73%) and ‘PRO results for each domain presented’ (73%), (see Table 5 of LeBlanc 2020). The least commonly adhered to items from the checklist included ‘PRO hypothesis stated’ (10%), ‘Method of questionnaire administration specified’ (17%), ‘Statistical approaches for missing data specified’ (23%) and ‘PRO specific limitations and implications for generalizability and clinical practice’ | Overall mean reporting quality score was 8.0 out of a possible 15, indicating that on average, manuscripts did not meet 7 CONSORT-PRO criteria. Scores ranged from 2 to 15. Within clinical trials, the highest scores were achieved by manuscripts for which a PRO was identified as a primary endpoint (10.5, n = 10) and for manuscripts that were secondary reports of study results focused on PROs (10.2, n = 10). Mean scores for manuscripts published before the introduction of the CONSORT-PRO guidelines were 7.9 (n = 14) and for manuscripts published after, 8.1 (n = 16) | Future studies which incorporate PROs would benefit from following existing guidelines to ensure that study evidence and conclusions can be fully assessed by readers, clinicians and policy makers |
Mack (2018) | The main purpose of this study was to provide evidence examining the adoption of CONSORT-PRO and CERT by researchers examining the link between exercise and quality of life in individuals living with osteoporosis…Guided by [refs [8], [28] of Mack 2018], select study (i.e., study quality) and journal (i.e., impact factor; IF) characteristics were examined to explore their association with CONSORT-PRO scores. Differences between adherence to CONSORT-PRO reporting standards based on whether quality of life served as a primary or secondary outcome and year of publication were also examined | Reporting of PROs in exercise studies for osteoporosis were poor, often not reproducible with inconclusive findings | Authors of primary sources reported "good" evidence for eight (42.1%) CONSORT-PRO items (see Table 2 of Mack 2018). The most frequently reported items were linked to reporting practices found in the Results section of the reviewed studies. Most notably, "good" adherence to reporting standards was noted for the timing of quality of life assessments and the number of participants analyzed at each test administration period (items 10, 11, and 13). Other items coded as "good" were (1) reporting of the PRO in the abstract, (2) reporting baseline scores for quality of life, (3) reporting of PRO results, and (4) reporting clinical outcomes linked to PRO. Nine items (47.37%) were classified as "poor" as less than 50% of the primary sources reported the necessary details. Specifically, mode of administration (n = 2; 8.7%) and details on statistical approaches for dealing with missing PRO data (n = 3; 13%) were rarely evident in the coded studies. For sources with quality of life as a primary endpoint (n = 6), one (4.30%) reported criteria linked to sample size determination. Finally, eight (34.80%) of the primary sources documented information specific to the rationale for including quality of life as an endpoint linked to exercise in individuals living with osteoporosis, included estimates of precision, or identified limitations linked to the PRO | CONSORT-PRO scores across all primary sources ranged from 7.00 to 14.50 (M = 10.17; SD = 1.78). Total scores were not statistically associated with impact factor (r12 = 0.06, p = 0.79) or study quality (r12 = 0.16, p = 0.48). Statistically significant differences in CONSORT-PRO scores when quality of life was the primary (M = 9.58; SD = 1.16) or secondary (M = 10.38; SD = 1.94) endpoint [t(21) = − 0.94, p = 0.36, d = 0.50] were not found. Differences in total scores were not found with publication pre- ( M = 10.44; SD = 1.97) and post (M = 10.29; SD = 1.75) CONSORT-PRO dissemination [t(21) = 0.18, p = 0.86, d = 0.08] | Researchers need to become aware of the recommended methodologies for reporting PRO-related outcomes and those for interventions (TIDieR or CERT) to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of the results. Greater use of online supplemental materials now provided by many academic and clinically orientated journals is one avenue to include additional detail. Journal editors, board members, and peer reviewers play an integral role in ensuring that PRO and exercise intervention research are complete and detailed. Journal editors may want to implement select changes that include adherence to the Standards [36]CONSORT-PRO, and CERT to ensure adequacy of reporting within and across studies to advance integrity in published research |
Martini (2016) | In detail, this review aims at investigating (i) the amount of available information on HRQoL in patients with Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, (ii) how HRQoL was assessed and reported, and (iii) if the quality of HRQoL information provided meets agreed standards | Existing HRQOL evidence is hampered by poor methodological quality of existing studies in gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Future authors should adhere to PRO research guidelines | Instrument validation references and timing of assessments were reported in most studies. PRO hypotheses, mode of instrument administration, statistical power and clinical significance of results was rarely provided. Based on Fig. 2 (of Martini 2016), most studies reported a reference supporting the validity of the instrument and reported rates of missing PRO data. Few studies identified PRO as a primary or secondary endpoint in the abstract, had an a priori PRO hypothesis or reported methods for handling missing PRO data | N/R | Follow PRO guidelines |
Mercieca-Bebber (2017) (JPRO) | The aims of this study were to describe the quality of reporting of PROs in ovarian cancer RCTs based on the CONSORT-PRO Extension; describe PRO compliance rates and the reporting of PRO compliance. We also aimed to explore the relationship between CONSORTPRO reporting score and other key variables which we thought may influence reporting, including whether there was a significant difference in the primary trial endpoint or the PRO endpoint, compliance rates and year of publication. We also explored whether the PRO content of the ovarian cancer RCT protocols reviewed previously [25] had an impact on: (1) the overall standard of PRO reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO, and (2) PRO compliance | PRO reporting is in need of improvement, particularly with regard to reporting rates, reasons and handling of missing PRO data. Use of SPIRIT-PRO and CONSORT-PRO will ensure high-quality PRO findings are accurately interpreted and can meaningfully impact patient care | 27 (75%) RCTs reported results of pre-specified PRO endpoints or all domains of the PRO questionnaire used, 25 (69%) interpreted PROs in the context of clinical endpoints, 19 (53%) provided the number of participants included in each PRO analysis, and 23 (64%) cited evidence of the validity of the PRO questionnaire used. However, other items were reported poorly; most concerning was the limited number of RCTs reporting baseline PROs (n = 13, 36%), or reporting approaches for dealing with missing PRO data (n = 14, 39%) | Total CONSORT-PRO scores (n = 36) ranged from 0 to 13.5/14, with a mean of 6.7 (48%). Most (n = 33, 92%) reported some PRO results. Of the 3 (12%) RCTs that did not report any PRO results, 2 stated that these would be reported subsequently (CONSORT-PRO total scores of 0/14 and 1/14, respectively). The other did not analyse the PRO data due to poor compliance, and did not address any other recommended CONSORT-PRO criteria, scoring 0/14. Another low-scoring publication (scoring 1/14) simply reported that there were no differences in global QOL at any time point, but did not report the time points assessed, analysis methods, or results for other questionnaire domains | PRO studies must be designed, conducted and reported to the highest standards to be of most benefit to patient care. Our findings suggest that: (1) adherence to the forthcoming SPIRIT-PRO Extension and CONSORT-PRO Extension for the development of protocols and publications, respectively, and (2) prospectively collecting reasons for missing data and reporting these reasons in the publication, can assist researchers to ensure that high-quality PRO evidence is available and utilised in clinical practice |
Mercieca-Bebber (2017) (QOLR) | We sought to (1) assess the uptake of CONSORT-PRO by identifying articles that cited the CONSORT-PRO Extension in the first 3 years since its release; (2) identify published RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO and describe their adherence to the statement; (3) compare the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO to a control sample; (4) identify predictors of CONSORT-PRO adherence; (5) identify which journals publish RCTs with PRO endpoints, so that these journals can be included in future knowledge transfer efforts led by the ISOQOL Reporting Taskforce and (6) describe to what extent journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO | Reporting of the PRO endpoint in a dedicated publication, journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO and citing CONSORT-PRO were significant predictors of higher total CONSORT-PRO adherence scores. Many key journals do not endorse CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors | Cases (citing CONSORT-PRO) frequently reported a rationale for including PROs, evidence of instrument validity, who completed the measure, questionnaires available at principle timepoint for analysis, results for hypothesised domains, implications for generalisability and interpreted PRO results with clinical outcomes. Cases rarely reported the mode of questionnaire administration. Controls (articles not citing CONSORT—PRO) frequently reported a rationale for PROs, baseline PRO scores, generalisability and interpreted PROs with clinical items. Controls rarely identified PROs in the abstract, PRO hypotheses, mode of administration or results of exploratory analyses | The 26 cases (RCTs citing CONSORT-PRO) had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO adherence scores (mean 77.7% of items, range 46.7–100%), compared to controls (comparable RCTs not citing CONSORT-PRO) mean 67.6%, range: 25.0–96.4%), t = 2.64, p = 0.01. For the extension adherence score (5 Extension items only), a larger difference was found between cases (mean 77.5%, range 28.6–100%) and controls (mean 59.5%, range 21.4–92.9%), t = 4.50, p < 0.001 There were three significant predictors of higher CONSORT- PRO total adherence score: ‘citing CONSORTPRO’, ‘journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO’ and ‘dedicated PRO paper’ (R2 = 0.48, p < 0.001). In the model for the five extension items only, there were two significant predictors: ‘citing CONSORT-PRO’ and ‘journal endorsing CONSORT- PRO’ (R2 = 0.36, p < 0.001). We did not observe a relationship between the year of publication and CONSORT-PRO total adherence score (r = 0.11, p = 0.39) or Extension adherence score (r = 0.05, p = 0.68) | Journals should endorse EQUATOR guidelines. Key primary results should be reported with the primary trial publication, detailed analyses should be reported in a dedicated QOL publication for the trial |
Stevens (2016) | The aim of this study was to summarize current evidence regarding the collection of PRO data in RCTs of unplanned general surgery and to use this information to inform the design of future studies in this area | There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs | Best reported: PRO data interpreted alongside clinical outcomes was completed for 27 of 35 PROs (74.3%) across the 20 studies and Reporting of the person completing the PRO for 19 PROs (54.3%). Worst reported items: PRO hypothesis stated in background /objectives 5 (14.3%), PROs used in eligibility/stratification criteria 0, Explicit statement of statistical approaches for dealing with missing data 1 (2.9%), Reporting of number of patients completing PROMs at follow-up 13 of 99 FU timepoints (13.1%), Additional analyses reported, included distinction between pre-specified and exploratory 0 | N/R | More intervention research needed; use of core outcome set |
Van Der Weijst (2019) | In addition, the methodological quality of this set of papers is analyzed with the ultimate goal to discuss challenges in and recommendations for the interpretation and comparison of HRQoL evidence obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) | Poor reporting and heterogeneity of methods makes comparisons of HRQOL outcomes hardly feasible HRQoL outcomes remains poor with certain aspects being systematically underreported | All PRO items were scored poorly, except for identification PRO as a primary or secondary outcome in the abstract which was scored moderate. Only one study fulfilled all criteria…60% of studies identified PROs in the abstract, however PRO hypotheses were available for only 13% of studies, instrument validity in 6% of studies, approaches for missing data in 18% of studies and interpretation with clinical outcomes in 31% of studies | N/R | Future clinical trials exploring novel therapies for advanced NSCLC should focus on reporting HRQoL data in a clinically meaningful and methodologically qualitative way. Additionally, further research should focus on developing standards to optimize and on defining MCID scores |
Weingartner (2016) | The aim of this review was to assess whether and how PROs are measured and reported in publications of RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies in advanced cancer according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension | The assessment, reporting and discussion of relevant PRO should be mandatory in the primary publication of trials that enroll patients with advanced and life-threatening diseases, to assist clinical decision-making in advanced cancers | 25(83%) of the 30 publications that reported PRO results verified the ‘evidence of the PRO instrument’ (item P6a). Also ‘outcomes and estimation’ (item 17, 67%) and ‘number analyzed’ (item 16, 60%) were usually met. 16 publications (53%) interpreted the results of the PRO data ‘in relation to clinical outcomes, including survival data’ (item 14). Nine publications (30%) mentioned the PRO as study outcome in the abstract (item P1b). The ‘stated PRO hypothesis’ (item P2b, 13%) and ‘ancillary analyses’ (item 18, 7%) were rarely mentioned. Item 7 (sample size) was not met by any publication | Mean (SD) 4.4 (2.5) of 14 items were met | Adequate assessment and reporting of PRO should become mandatory in the primary publication of trials that enroll patients with advanced and life-threatening disease PRO reporting and discussion need to be further advocated, so that it may lead to an understanding of the patient experience that may inform decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers better and enables an informed and patient-oriented decision making Specifically, if HRQoL and symptom burden would be assessed and reported adequately and considered together with the results for overall survival, patients, physicians, health care authorities and decision-makers will be provided with all necessary information to weight patient benefit versus potential patient burden in this critical and vulnerable phase of life |