Literature DB >> 34508610

Impact of Blinding on Patient-Reported Outcome Differences Between Treatment Arms in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials.

Fabio Efficace1,2, David Cella2, Neil K Aaronson3, Melanie Calvert4,5, Francesco Cottone1, Massimo Di Maio6, Francesco Perrone7, Francesco Sparano1, Eva-Maria Gamper8, Marco Vignetti1, Johannes M Giesinger9.   

Abstract

Some concerns have been raised about potential bias in patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from open-label cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated if open-label trials favor the experimental treatment over the standard treatment more frequently than blinded trials. We also examined if the effect of blinding differs for distal vs more proximal PROs. We assessed 538 RCTs with a PRO endpoint conducted in the most prevalent cancers, of which 366 (68.0%) were open-label, 148 (27.5%) were blinded, and 24 (4.5%) were categorized as unclear. In our multivariable logistic regression model, we did not observe a statistically significant association of the independent variable treatment concealment (blinded vs open-label) on the dependent variable measuring the proportion of trials favoring the experimental treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 1.79; 2-sided P = .40). This was also the case when comparing distal and proximal PROs. Our findings provide novel evidence-based data that support the validity of PRO results from open-label cancer RCTs.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34508610      PMCID: PMC8902340          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djab177

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   11.816


  11 in total

1.  Blinding in randomized clinical trials: imposed impartiality.

Authors:  A Hróbjartsson; I Boutron
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Investigating Potential Bias in Patient-Reported Outcomes in Open-label Cancer Trials.

Authors:  Jessica K Roydhouse; Mallorie H Fiero; Paul G Kluetz
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 31.777

3.  Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.

Authors:  Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Johannes M Giesinger; Fabio Efficace; Neil Aaronson; Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Francesco Cottone; David Cella; Eva-Maria Gamper
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Blinding in Physical Therapy Trials and Its Association with Treatment Effects: A Meta-epidemiological Study.

Authors:  Susan Armijo-Olivo; Jorge Fuentes; Bruno R da Costa; Humam Saltaji; Christine Ha; Greta G Cummings
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.159

7.  Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials.

Authors:  Jelena Savović; Hayley E Jones; Douglas G Altman; Ross J Harris; Peter Jüni; Julie Pildal; Bodil Als-Nielsen; Ethan M Balk; Christian Gluud; Lise Lotte Gluud; John P A Ioannidis; Kenneth F Schulz; Rebecca Beynon; Nicky J Welton; Lesley Wood; David Moher; Jonathan J Deeks; Jonathan A C Sterne
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-09-18       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Quantifying bias in randomized controlled trials in child health: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Lisa Hartling; Michele P Hamm; Ricardo M Fernandes; Donna M Dryden; Ben Vandermeer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 9.  Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; Julian P T Higgins; Gemma Clayton; Jonathan A C Sterne; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jelena Savović
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Helene Moustgaard; Gemma L Clayton; Hayley E Jones; Isabelle Boutron; Lars Jørgensen; David R T Laursen; Mette F Olsen; Asger Paludan-Müller; Philippe Ravaud; Jelena Savović; Jonathan A C Sterne; Julian P T Higgins; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2020-01-21
View more
  3 in total

1.  How Vital Are Patient-Reported Outcomes?

Authors:  Steven S Chang; Benjamin Movsas
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 11.816

2.  Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum.

Authors:  Julia Lai-Kwon; Alyssa M Vanderbeek; Anna Minchom; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Della Ogunleye; Richard Stephens; Melanie Calvert; Christina Yap
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-09-02       Impact factor: 5.837

Review 3.  Strategies to Mitigate Chemotherapy and Radiation Toxicities That Affect Eating.

Authors:  Peter M Anderson; Stefanie M Thomas; Shauna Sartoski; Jacob G Scott; Kaitlin Sobilo; Sara Bewley; Laura K Salvador; Maritza Salazar-Abshire
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 5.717

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.