O Bylicki1, H K Gan2, F Joly3, D Maillet4, B You5, J Péron6. 1. Department of Pneumology, Desgenettes Hospital; Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Léon BERARD, University of Lyon, Lyon, France. 2. Joint Austin-Ludwig Oncology Unit, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. INSERM, U1086, Caen; Clinical Research Unit, François Baclesse Center, Caen; Department of Medicine, CHU de Caen, Caen. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Lyon-Sud Hospital Center, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite. 5. Department of Medical Oncology, Lyon-Sud Hospital Center, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite; EMR UCBL/HCL 3738, Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Sud, Oullins; Department of Medical Oncology, University of Lyon, Lyon. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Lyon-Sud Hospital Center, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite; Biostatistics Unit, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon; Biometry and Evolutionary Biology Laboratory, Health and Biostatistics Team, CNRS UMR 5558, Villeurbanne, France. Electronic address: julien.peron@chu-lyon.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2013 to provide a set of specific recommendations regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). There is limited data regarding how well current publications of oncology RCTs report PROs if assessed using these guidelines. DESIGN: All phase III medical oncology RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed according to the 2013 PROs CONSORT recommendations and an 11-point PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS) was defined based on the criteria. RESULTS: The majority of trials did not report on PROs at all (201 of 325; 62%). Of the remaining 124 trials, the mean PRORQS score was 5.0 on an 11-point scale. The items related to methods of PROs collection and analysis were poorly reported (Description of the prespecified PRO hypothesis: 26% of RCTs; methods for PRO data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other): 16%; statistical approaches for managing missing data: 37%). The only factor significantly associated with improved PROs reporting was where PROs reporting was the subject of a dedicated secondary manuscript, as was the case in 36 of the 124 (29%) of RCTs. CONCLUSION: Despite their clinical relevance, our findings show that some aspects of PROs reporting may greatly be improved, especially critical methodological aspects of PROs collection and analysis. The exceptions were where PROs were described in PROs-specific secondary publication. Use of the 2013 PROs CONSORT extensions should be encouraged and their effects on PROs reporting subsequently reassessed.
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance was extended in 2013 to provide a set of specific recommendations regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). There is limited data regarding how well current publications of oncology RCTs report PROs if assessed using these guidelines. DESIGN: All phase III medical oncology RCTs published between 2007 and 2011 were reviewed according to the 2013 PROs CONSORT recommendations and an 11-point PROs reporting quality score (PRORQS) was defined based on the criteria. RESULTS: The majority of trials did not report on PROs at all (201 of 325; 62%). Of the remaining 124 trials, the mean PRORQS score was 5.0 on an 11-point scale. The items related to methods of PROs collection and analysis were poorly reported (Description of the prespecified PRO hypothesis: 26% of RCTs; methods for PRO data collection (paper, telephone, electronic, other): 16%; statistical approaches for managing missing data: 37%). The only factor significantly associated with improved PROs reporting was where PROs reporting was the subject of a dedicated secondary manuscript, as was the case in 36 of the 124 (29%) of RCTs. CONCLUSION: Despite their clinical relevance, our findings show that some aspects of PROs reporting may greatly be improved, especially critical methodological aspects of PROs collection and analysis. The exceptions were where PROs were described in PROs-specific secondary publication. Use of the 2013 PROs CONSORT extensions should be encouraged and their effects on PROs reporting subsequently reassessed.
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: Matthew R LeBlanc; Rachel Hirschey; Ashley Leak Bryant; Thomas W LeBlanc; Sophia K Smith Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-12-17 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: Louis Garnier; Emilie Charton; Antoine Falcoz; Sophie Paget-Bailly; Dewi Vernerey; Marine Jary; François Ducray; Elsa Curtit Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-11-11
Authors: Houssein Safa; Monica Tamil; Philippe E Spiess; Brandon Manley; Julio Pow-Sang; Scott M Gilbert; Firas Safa; Brian D Gonzalez; Laura B Oswald; Adele Semaan; Adi Diab; Jad Chahoud Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage; Melanie Calvert; Martin R Stockler; Madeleine T King Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692
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
Authors: Angela MacCarthy; Shona Kirtley; Jennifer A de Beyer; Douglas G Altman; Iveta Simera Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 7.640