Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

The level of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: A systematic review


Dirven, Linda; Taphoorn, Martin J B; Reijneveld, Jaap C; Blazeby, Jane; Jacobs, Marc; Pusic, Andrea; La Sala, Edoardo; Stupp, Roger; Fayers, Peter; Efficace, Fabio (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.

Abstract

Background: To determine the net clinical benefit of a new treatment strategy, information on both survival and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is required. However, to make an adequately informed decision, PRO evidence should be of sufficiently high quality.
Objective: To investigate the methodological quality of PRO reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with brain tumours, and to assess the proportion of studies that should impact clinical decision-making.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in several databases covering January 2004 to March 2012. We selected relevant RCTs and retrieved the following data: (1) basic trial demographics and PRO characteristics, (2) quality of PRO reporting and (3) risk of bias. Studies that should impact clinical decision-making based on their methodological robustness were analysed systematically.
Results: We identified 14 RCTs, representing over 3000 glioma patients. Only two RCTs (14%) satisfied sufficiently many key methodological criteria to provide high-quality PRO evidence, and should therefore impact clinical decision-making. Important methodological limitations in other studies were lack of reporting of the extent (43%) and reasons (86%) of missing data and statistical approaches to handle this (71%). PRO results were not interpreted in 79% of the studies and clinical significance was not discussed in 86%. Studies with high-quality PRO evidence generally showed lower risk of bias.
Conclusions: Investigators involved in brain tumour research should pay special attention to methodological challenges identified in current work. The level of PRO reporting should continue to improve in order to facilitate a critical appraisal of study results.

Abstract

Background: To determine the net clinical benefit of a new treatment strategy, information on both survival and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is required. However, to make an adequately informed decision, PRO evidence should be of sufficiently high quality.
Objective: To investigate the methodological quality of PRO reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with brain tumours, and to assess the proportion of studies that should impact clinical decision-making.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in several databases covering January 2004 to March 2012. We selected relevant RCTs and retrieved the following data: (1) basic trial demographics and PRO characteristics, (2) quality of PRO reporting and (3) risk of bias. Studies that should impact clinical decision-making based on their methodological robustness were analysed systematically.
Results: We identified 14 RCTs, representing over 3000 glioma patients. Only two RCTs (14%) satisfied sufficiently many key methodological criteria to provide high-quality PRO evidence, and should therefore impact clinical decision-making. Important methodological limitations in other studies were lack of reporting of the extent (43%) and reasons (86%) of missing data and statistical approaches to handle this (71%). PRO results were not interpreted in 79% of the studies and clinical significance was not discussed in 86%. Studies with high-quality PRO evidence generally showed lower risk of bias.
Conclusions: Investigators involved in brain tumour research should pay special attention to methodological challenges identified in current work. The level of PRO reporting should continue to improve in order to facilitate a critical appraisal of study results.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
17 citations in Web of Science®
21 citations in Scopus®
22 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 18 Feb 2015
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Oncology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:16 July 2014
Deposited On:18 Feb 2015 17:38
Last Modified:14 Feb 2018 23:13
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0959-8049
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.06.016
PubMed ID:25034656

Download