Literature DB >> 26409600

Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation-Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force.

Marc K Walton1, John H Powers2, Jeremy Hobart3, Donald Patrick4, Patrick Marquis5, Spiros Vamvakas6, Maria Isaac6, Elizabeth Molsen7, Stefan Cano8, Laurie B Burke9.   

Abstract

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient's health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment's benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is on the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment's intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of the patient's typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or when it is difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the COI. The relationship of these measurements with how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: patient reported outcomes, clinician reported outcomes, observer reported outcomes, and performance outcomes. A full description as well as explanation of other important COA features is included in this report. The information in this report should aid in the development, refinement, and standardization of COAs, and, ultimately, improve their measurement properties.
Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical outcome assessment; concept of interest; context of use; treatment benefit

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26409600      PMCID: PMC4610138          DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  36 in total

Review 1.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework.

Authors: 
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS): appropriate for studies of Friedreich's ataxia?

Authors:  Stefan J Cano; Jeremy C Hobart; Paul E Hart; L V Prasad Korlipara; Anthony H V Schapira; J Mark Cooper
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 10.338

3.  Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale motor examination: are ratings of nurses, residents in neurology, and movement disorders specialists interchangeable?

Authors:  Bart Post; Maruschka P Merkus; Rob M A de Bie; Rob J de Haan; Johannes D Speelman
Journal:  Mov Disord       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 10.338

Review 4.  Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties.

Authors:  C B Terwee; W Bouwmeester; S L van Elsland; H C W de Vet; J Dekker
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2011-01-18       Impact factor: 6.576

5.  The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation.

Authors:  Benjamin C Brown; Stephen P McKenna; Mattea Solomon; Jeanette Wilburn; Duncan A McGrouther; Ardeshir Bayat
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.730

Review 6.  An examination of instrumental activities of daily living assessment in older adults and mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  David A Gold
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 2.475

7.  Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation.

Authors:  Diane Wild; Alyson Grove; Mona Martin; Sonya Eremenco; Sandra McElroy; Aneesa Verjee-Lorenz; Pennifer Erikson
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 8.  Monitoring progression in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA): the use of clinical scales.

Authors:  Katrin Bürk; Stefanie R Schulz; Jörg B Schulz
Journal:  J Neurochem       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.372

Review 9.  Assessing craving for alcohol.

Authors:  D J Drobes; S E Thomas
Journal:  Alcohol Res Health       Date:  1999

10.  Qualitative development of a patient-reported outcome symptom measure in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome.

Authors:  P Marquis; K E Lasch; L Delgado-Herrera; S Kothari; A Lembo; C Lademacher; G Spears; A Nishida; Waldman L Tesler; E Piault; K Rosa; B Zeiher
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 4.488

View more
  62 in total

1.  Developing Outcomes Assessments as Endpoints for Registrational Clinical Trials of Antibacterial Drugs: 2015 Update From the Biomarkers Consortium of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health.

Authors:  George H Talbot; John H Powers; Steven C Hoffmann
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2015-12-13       Impact factor: 9.079

2.  Developing and Implementing Performance Outcome Assessments: Evidentiary, Methodologic, and Operational Considerations.

Authors:  Elizabeth Richardson; Jessica Burnell; Heather R Adams; Richard W Bohannon; Elizabeth Nicole Bush; Michelle Campbell; Wen Hung Chen; Stephen Joel Coons; Elektra Papadopoulos; Bryce R Reeve; Daniel Rooks; Gregory Daniel
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 1.778

3.  Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

Authors:  John H Powers; Donald L Patrick; Marc K Walton; Patrick Marquis; Stefan Cano; Jeremy Hobart; Maria Isaac; Spiros Vamvakas; Ashley Slagle; Elizabeth Molsen; Laurie B Burke
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 5.725

4.  The Path Forward for Digital Measures: Suppressing the Desire to Compare Apples and Pineapples.

Authors:  Carrie R Houts; Bray Patrick-Lake; Ieuan Clay; R J Wirth
Journal:  Digit Biomark       Date:  2020-11-26

5.  Beyond study participants: a framework for engaging patients in the selection or development of clinical outcome assessments for evaluating the benefits of treatment in medical product development.

Authors:  Hilary Wilson; Ebony Dashiell-Aje; Milena Anatchkova; Karin Coyne; Asha Hareendran; Nancy Kline Leidy; Colleen A McHorney; Kathy Wyrwich
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  Patient-Reported Outcome Assessments as Endpoints in Studies in Infectious Diseases.

Authors:  John H Powers; Kellee Howard; Todd Saretsky; Sarah Clifford; Steve Hoffmann; Lily Llorens; George Talbot
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 9.079

7.  A Psychometric Evaluation of the Motor-Behavioral Assessment Scale for Use as an Outcome Measure in Rett Syndrome Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Melissa Raspa; Carla M Bann; Angela Gwaltney; Timothy A Benke; Cary Fu; Daniel G Glaze; Richard Haas; Peter Heydemann; Mary Jones; Walter E Kaufmann; David Lieberman; Eric Marsh; Sarika Peters; Robin Ryther; Shannon Standridge; Steven A Skinner; Alan K Percy; Jeffrey L Neul
Journal:  Am J Intellect Dev Disabil       Date:  2020-11-01

8.  Measurement invariance, the lack thereof, and modeling change.

Authors:  Michael C Edwards; Carrie R Houts; R J Wirth
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-08-17       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Scale development with small samples: a new application of longitudinal item response theory.

Authors:  Carrie R Houts; Robert Morlock; Steven I Blum; Michael C Edwards; R J Wirth
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 10.  Clinical nursing and midwifery research in Latin American and Caribbean countries: A scoping review.

Authors:  Sarah Iribarren; Samantha Stonbraker; Brandon Larsen; Islane Santos; Renata Faria; Fernanda S N Góes; Lorena Binfa; Elaine Larson
Journal:  Int J Nurs Pract       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 2.066

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.