Top

Gepubliceerd in:

07-02-2017

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

Auteurs: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Julie Rouette, Melanie Calvert, Madeleine T. King, Lori McLeod, Patricia Holch, Michael J. Palmer, Michael Brundage, on behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2017

Abstract

Purpose

This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)—Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.

Methods

CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014–2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.

Results

Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25–96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. ‘Citing CONSORT-PRO’, ‘journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO’ and ‘dedicated PRO paper’ were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R ² = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.

vorige artikel The PROMIS fatigue item bank has good measurement properties in patients with fibromyalgia and severe fatigue

volgende artikel Item bias detection in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale using structural equation modeling: comparison with other item bias detection methods

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Altman, D., & Simera, I. (2015). A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the History of Treatment Evaluation. http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/a-history-of-the-evolution-of-guidelines-for-reporting-medical-research-the-long-road-to-the-equator-network/. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.

Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRefPubMed

Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Vol. 340).

The CONSORT Group Impact of CONSORT. http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/impact-of-consort. Accessed 8 Nov 2015.

Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., & Moher, D. (2012). Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Systematic Reviews, 1(60), 2046–4053. (Review).

Edwards, J. P., Dharampal, N., Chung, W., Brar, M. S., Ball, C. G., Seto, J., et al. (2015). Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved? European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 49(5):1476–1482. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv375. (Journal article)

Lu, J., Gary, K. W., Copolillo, A., Ward, J., Niemeier, J. P., & Lapane, K. L. (2015). Randomized controlled trials in adult traumatic brain injury: a review of compliance to CONSORT statement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(4), 702–714. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.1010.1026. (Epub 2014 Dec 1019).CrossRefPubMed

Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labelling Claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016.

Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT-PRO extension. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(8), 814–822. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.879.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Brundage, M., Bass, B., Davidson, J., Queenan, J., Bezjak, A., Ringash, J., et al. (2011). Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 653–664. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9793-3.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18(12), 1935–1942. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm121.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., Schunemann, H. J., & Efficace, F. (2013). The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: implications for clinical trials and practice. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-184. (Review)

13.

Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd edn.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

14.

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR Network) (2016). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort-pro/. Accessed 11 July 2016.

15.

Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.PubMed

16.

Thomson Reuters (2014). Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.proxy.queensu.ca/JCR/JCR?PointOfEntry=Home&SID=3C5UmgmjnhOGsy9bXch. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.

17.

Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., Bass, B., de Vet, H., Duffy, H., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1161–1175. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0252-1.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Vodicka, E., Kim, K., Devine, E. B., Gnanasakthy, A., Scoggins, J. F., & Patrick, D. L. (2015). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.1004.1004.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Bylicki, O., Gan, H. K., Joly, F., Maillet, D., You, B., & Péron, J. (2014). Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Annals of Oncology, 26(1), 231–237. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu489.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Dirven, L., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Reijneveld, J. C., Blazeby, J., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., et al. (2014). The level of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 50(14), 2432–2448. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.06.016.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., Cafaro, V., Eastham, J., Pusic, A., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 30(13), 01090–01097. (Journal article)

22.

Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.005.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mercieca-Bebber, R. L., Perreca, A., King, M., Macann, A., Whale, K., Soldati, S., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. European Journal of Cancer, 56, 144–161. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.12.025.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Efficace, F., Fayers, P., Pusic, A., Cemal, Y., Yanagawa, J., Jacobs, M., et al. (2015). Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials. Cancer, 121(18), 3335–3342. doi:10.1002/cncr.29489.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Koller, M., Warncke, S., Hjermstad, M. J., Arraras, J., Pompili, C., Harle, A., et al. (2015). Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development. Cancer, 121(24), 4300–4323. doi:10.1002/cncr.29682.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Weingartner, V., Dargatz, N., Weber, C., Mueller, D., Stock, S., Voltz, R., et al. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: a structured literature review. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 9(6), 821–829. doi:10.1586/17512433.17512016.11164595.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D. M., Hooton, N., Krebs Seida, J., et al. (2009). Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339. doi:10.1136/bmj.b4012

28.

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M. R., & King, M. T. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 6(6). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938.

29.

Rouette, J., Blazeby, J., King, M., Calvert, M., Peng, Y., Meyer, R. M., et al. (2015). Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1317–1325. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0871-9.CrossRefPubMed

30.

CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Transparent reporting of trials (2013). Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT PRO). http://www.consort-statement.org/extensions?ContentWidgetId=560. Accessed 11 July 2016.

31.

UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service Resource Resources. http://www.rds-sc.nihr.ac.uk/resources-and-links/. Accessed 11 July 2016.

Titel: Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension
Auteurs: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber
Julie Rouette
Melanie Calvert
Madeleine T. King
Lori McLeod
Patricia Holch
Michael J. Palmer
Michael Brundage
on behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce
Publicatiedatum: 07-02-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2017
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2017

Impact of caregiver activities and social supports on multidimensional caregiver burden: analyses from nationally-representative surveys of cancer patients and their caregivers

Physical exercise, vegetable and fruit intake and health-related quality of life in Chinese breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study

Quality of life and uncertainty in Crohn’s disease

Correlates of health-related quality of life in young-old and old–old community-dwelling older adults

Framing of mobility items: a source of poor agreement between preference-based health-related quality of life instruments in a population of individuals receiving assisted ventilation

Predicting parent health-related quality of life: evaluating conceptual models