Fabio Efficace1, Marc Jacobs2, Andrea Pusic3, Elfriede Greimel4, Alfonso Piciocchi5, Jacobien M Kieffer6, Alexandra Gilbert7, Peter Fayers8, Jane Blazeby9. 1. Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy. Electronic address: f.efficace@gimema.it. 2. Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 5. Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy. 6. Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Leeds Institute of Cancer Studies and Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 8. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. 9. Centre for Surgical Research, University of Bristol and University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
AIM: The aim for this study is to investigate the methodological quality and potential impact on clinical decision making of patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the gynaecological cancer sites. METHODS: A systematic review identified RCTs published between January 2004 and June 2012. Relevant studies were evaluated using a pre-determined extraction form which included: (1) Trial demographics and clinical and PRO characteristics; (2) level of PRO reporting and (3) bias, assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. All studies were additionally analysed in relation to their relevance in supporting clinical decision making. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs enrolling 24,991 patients were identified. In eight RCTs (16%) a PRO was the primary end-point. Twenty-one studies (42%) were carried out in a multi-national context. Where statistically significant PRO differences between treatments were found, it related in most cases to both symptoms and domains other than symptoms (n=17, 57%). The majority of studies (n=42, 84%) did not mention the mode of administration nor the methods of collecting PRO data. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data were only explicitly mentioned in nine RCTs (18%). Sixteen RCTs (32%) were considered to be of high-quality and thus able to inform clinical decision making. Higher-quality PRO studies were generally associated with RCTs that were at a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This study showed that RCTs with PROs were generally well designed and conducted. In a third the information was very informative to fully understand the pros and cons of PROs treatment decision-making.
AIM: The aim for this study is to investigate the methodological quality and potential impact on clinical decision making of patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the gynaecological cancer sites. METHODS: A systematic review identified RCTs published between January 2004 and June 2012. Relevant studies were evaluated using a pre-determined extraction form which included: (1) Trial demographics and clinical and PRO characteristics; (2) level of PRO reporting and (3) bias, assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. All studies were additionally analysed in relation to their relevance in supporting clinical decision making. RESULTS: Fifty RCTs enrolling 24,991 patients were identified. In eight RCTs (16%) a PRO was the primary end-point. Twenty-one studies (42%) were carried out in a multi-national context. Where statistically significant PRO differences between treatments were found, it related in most cases to both symptoms and domains other than symptoms (n=17, 57%). The majority of studies (n=42, 84%) did not mention the mode of administration nor the methods of collecting PRO data. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data were only explicitly mentioned in nine RCTs (18%). Sixteen RCTs (32%) were considered to be of high-quality and thus able to inform clinical decision making. Higher-quality PRO studies were generally associated with RCTs that were at a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This study showed that RCTs with PROs were generally well designed and conducted. In a third the information was very informative to fully understand the pros and cons of PROs treatment decision-making.
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Julie Rouette; Melanie Calvert; Madeleine T King; Lori McLeod; Patricia Holch; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Fabio Efficace; Peter Fayers; Andrea Pusic; Yeliz Cemal; Jane Yanagawa; Marc Jacobs; Andrea la Sala; Valentina Cafaro; Katie Whale; Jonathan Rees; Jane Blazeby Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-16 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Michael A Feuerstein; Marc Jacobs; Alfonso Piciocchi; Bernard Bochner; Andrea Pusic; Peter Fayers; Jane Blazeby; Fabio Efficace Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Caroline Martini; Eva-Maria Gamper; Lisa Wintner; Bernhard Nilica; Barbara Sperner-Unterweger; Bernhard Holzner; Irene Virgolini Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-09-10 Impact factor: 3.186