PURPOSE: Understand the choice of recall period for PRO measures based on intended use, characteristics of the disease, treatment, and attributes of studies. METHODS: Current practice and considerations were reviewed within several disease areas (overactive bladder, menopausal hot flashes, niacin-induced flushing, osteoarthritis pain, irritable bowel symptoms, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and alopecia). RESULTS: Rationales were identified for using different recall periods, including event-driven (immediate), daily, up to weekly, and longer than weekly. This work demonstrates that (1) recall depends on what the PRO measure captures, its intended use, and attributes of the disease and study; (2) within the same disease area, recall can vary depending on the concept or phenomenon of interest; (3) recall must consider patient burden and their ability to easily and accurately recall the information requested; and (4) recall must be consistent with the duration of the trial and the scheduled clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter recall periods may underestimate symptom burden when symptoms have diurnal or day-to-day fluctuation and may place undue burden on patients. On the other hand, recall intervals that are too long may either over- or underestimate the health state. Therefore, appropriate criteria should be considered given attributes of the disease when selecting an adequate recall period.
PURPOSE: Understand the choice of recall period for PRO measures based on intended use, characteristics of the disease, treatment, and attributes of studies. METHODS: Current practice and considerations were reviewed within several disease areas (overactive bladder, menopausal hot flashes, niacin-induced flushing, osteoarthritis pain, irritable bowel symptoms, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and alopecia). RESULTS: Rationales were identified for using different recall periods, including event-driven (immediate), daily, up to weekly, and longer than weekly. This work demonstrates that (1) recall depends on what the PRO measure captures, its intended use, and attributes of the disease and study; (2) within the same disease area, recall can vary depending on the concept or phenomenon of interest; (3) recall must consider patient burden and their ability to easily and accurately recall the information requested; and (4) recall must be consistent with the duration of the trial and the scheduled clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter recall periods may underestimate symptom burden when symptoms have diurnal or day-to-day fluctuation and may place undue burden on patients. On the other hand, recall intervals that are too long may either over- or underestimate the health state. Therefore, appropriate criteria should be considered given attributes of the disease when selecting an adequate recall period.
Authors: Jeanette S Brown; Kristin S McNaughton; Jean F Wyman; Kathryn L Burgio; Richard Harkaway; Donald Bergner; David S Altman; Joel Kaufman; Keith Kaufman; Cynthia J Girman Journal: Urology Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Dennis A Revicki; Mary K Margolis; Elizabeth N Bush; Leonard R DeRogatis; Vladimir Hanes Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2011-05-19 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: R E Williams; L Kalilani; D Britt DiBenedetti; X Zhou; A L Granger; S E Fehnel; K B Levine; J Jordan; R V Clark Journal: Climacteric Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.005
Authors: Anne W Lucky; Daniel J Piacquadio; Cherie M Ditre; Frank Dunlap; Irwin Kantor; Amit G Pandya; Ronald C Savin; Michael D Tharp Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: David M Condon; Robert Chapman; Sara Shaunfield; Michael A Kallen; Jennifer L Beaumont; Daniel Eek; Debanjali Mitra; Katy L Benjamin; Kelly McQuarrie; Jamae Liu; James W Shaw; Allison Martin Nguyen; Karen Keating; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Sarah A Mansfield; Abigail R Smith; Brenda W Gillespie; Catherine S Bradley; David Cella; J Quentin Clemens; Margaret E Helmuth; H Henry Lai; Ziya Kirkali; Pooja Talaty; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: J Urol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J M Lackner; J Jaccard; L Keefer; R Firth; A M Carosella; M Sitrin; D Brenner Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Kathryn E Flynn; Sarah A Mansfield; Abigail R Smith; Brenda W Gillespie; Catherine S Bradley; David Cella; Margaret E Helmuth; H Henry Lai; Ziya Kirkali; Pooja Talaty; James W Griffith; Kevin P Weinfurt Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Alain M Schoepfer; Alex Straumann; Radoslaw Panczak; Michael Coslovsky; Claudia E Kuehni; Elisabeth Maurer; Nadine A Haas; Yvonne Romero; Ikuo Hirano; Jeffrey A Alexander; Nirmala Gonsalves; Glenn T Furuta; Evan S Dellon; John Leung; Margaret H Collins; Christian Bussmann; Peter Netzer; Sandeep K Gupta; Seema S Aceves; Mirna Chehade; Fouad J Moawad; Felicity T Enders; Kathleen J Yost; Tiffany H Taft; Emily Kern; Marcel Zwahlen; Ekaterina Safroneeva Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 22.682