Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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.
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.
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
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)
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd edn.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
- Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension
Madeleine T. King
Michael J. Palmer
on behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce
- Springer International Publishing