Michael A Feuerstein1, Marc Jacobs2, Alfonso Piciocchi3, Bernard Bochner4, Andrea Pusic4, Peter Fayers5, Jane Blazeby6, Fabio Efficace3. 1. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: mfeuerste1@nshs.edu. 2. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 5. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Technology and Science, Trondheim, Norway. 6. Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social & Community Medicine, University of Bristol and University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research. RESULTS: In total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer. METHODS: A systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research. RESULTS: In total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data. CONCLUSIONS: We found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making.
Authors: Scott M Gilbert; Rodney L Dunn; Brent K Hollenbeck; James E Montie; Cheryl T Lee; David P Wood; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Anita L Sabichi; J Jack Lee; H Barton Grossman; Suyu Liu; Ellen Richmond; Bogdan A Czerniak; Jorge De la Cerda; Craig Eagle; Jaye L Viner; J Lynn Palmer; Seth P Lerner Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-08-31
Authors: Richard J Sylvester; Adrian P M van der Meijden; Willem Oosterlinck; J Alfred Witjes; Christian Bouffioux; Louis Denis; Donald W W Newling; Karlheinz Kurth Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-01-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Nicholas D James; Syed A Hussain; Emma Hall; Peter Jenkins; Jean Tremlett; Christine Rawlings; Malcolm Crundwell; Bruce Sizer; Thiagarajan Sreenivasan; Carey Hendron; Rebecca Lewis; Rachel Waters; Robert A Huddart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: N E Mohamed; F Gilbert; C T Lee; J Sfakianos; C Knauer; R Mehrazin; H Badr; D Wittmann; T Downs; D Berry; B Given; P Wiklund; G Steineck Journal: Bladder Cancer Date: 2016-04-27
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