Jonathan R Rees1,2, Katie Whale3, Daniel Fish4, Peter Fayers5,6, Valentina Cafaro7, Andrea Pusic4, Jane M Blazeby3,8, Fabio Efficace7. 1. Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. jonathan.rees@bristol.ac.uk. 2. University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. jonathan.rees@bristol.ac.uk. 3. Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, NY, USA. 5. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen Medical School, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 6. Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim, Norway. 7. Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Central Office, Rome, Italy. 8. University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. METHODS: A systematic review from January 2004-February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research-patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.
PURPOSE: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time. METHODS: A systematic review from January 2004-February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research-patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.
Authors: Susanne Joëlle de Kort; Pax H B Willemse; Jolanda M Habraken; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Dick L Willems; Dick J Richel Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Barry C Lembersky; H Samuel Wieand; Nicholas J Petrelli; Michael J O'Connell; Linda H Colangelo; Roy E Smith; Thomas E Seay; Jeffrey K Giguere; M Ernest Marshall; Andrew D Jacobs; Lauren K Colman; Atilla Soran; Greg Yothers; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K C M J Peeters; C J H van de Velde; J W H Leer; H Martijn; J M C Junggeburt; E Klein Kranenbarg; W H Steup; T Wiggers; H J Rutten; C A M Marijnen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Artur Bauhofer; Ulrike Plaul; Alexander Torossian; Michael Koller; Benno Stinner; Ilhan Celik; Helmut Sitter; Bernd Greger; Martin Middeke; Moshe Schein; Jeremy Wyatt; Per-Olof Nyström; Thomas Hartung; Matthias Rothmund; Wilfried Lorenz Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-01-04 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Derek J Jonker; Chris J O'Callaghan; Christos S Karapetis; John R Zalcberg; Dongsheng Tu; Heather-Jane Au; Scott R Berry; Marianne Krahn; Timothy Price; R John Simes; Niall C Tebbutt; Guy van Hazel; Rafal Wierzbicki; Christiane Langer; Malcolm J Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Samantha Cruz Rivera; Derek G Kyte; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Anita L Slade; Christel McMullan; Melanie J Calvert Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 3.186
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