OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview and to evaluate the quality of published clinical trials assessing the effect of drug therapy on patients' quality of life. DATA SOURCE: Clinical trials that assessed the effect of drug therapy on patient quality of life published in English, peer-reviewed journals were identified through a MEDLINE search (1966-1995) and review of references from recent publications. DATA EXTRACTION: A data collection form was used to record information on trial demographics, quality-of-life assessment, study design, and statistical analyses. A quality score was computed for each article based on a checklist of items. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five articles were eligible for this study Reliability data on the quality-of-life instruments were provided by 23.8% of the studies and validity data were provided by 21.5%. Quality of life was defined in about 14% of the trials, while 15% provided the rationale for selecting the specific instrument(s). The average overall quality score for the trials was 0.34, based on a scale of 0-1. The trials with quality-of-life scores as the primary end point had significantly higher quality scores than those designed primarily to measure clinical outcomes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a gradual but significant improvement in the quality of published clinical trials over time, more attention should be paid to various aspects of quality-of-life assessment (e.g., defining construct, instrument selection).
OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive overview and to evaluate the quality of published clinical trials assessing the effect of drug therapy on patients' quality of life. DATA SOURCE: Clinical trials that assessed the effect of drug therapy on patient quality of life published in English, peer-reviewed journals were identified through a MEDLINE search (1966-1995) and review of references from recent publications. DATA EXTRACTION: A data collection form was used to record information on trial demographics, quality-of-life assessment, study design, and statistical analyses. A quality score was computed for each article based on a checklist of items. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-five articles were eligible for this study Reliability data on the quality-of-life instruments were provided by 23.8% of the studies and validity data were provided by 21.5%. Quality of life was defined in about 14% of the trials, while 15% provided the rationale for selecting the specific instrument(s). The average overall quality score for the trials was 0.34, based on a scale of 0-1. The trials with quality-of-life scores as the primary end point had significantly higher quality scores than those designed primarily to measure clinical outcomes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a gradual but significant improvement in the quality of published clinical trials over time, more attention should be paid to various aspects of quality-of-life assessment (e.g., defining construct, instrument selection).
Authors: Sally E Jensen; Sarah K Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Beaumont; Amy Abernethy; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen Syrjala; David Cella Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-11-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Susan Yount; Jennifer Beaumont; Sarah Rosenbloom; David Cella; Jyoti Patel; Thomas Hensing; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen Syrjala; Amy P Abernethy Journal: Clin Lung Cancer Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 4.785
Authors: David Cella; Sarah K Rosenbloom; Jennifer L Beaumont; Susan E Yount; Diane Paul; Debra Hampton; Amy P Abernethy; Paul B Jacobsen; Karen Syrjala; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Angus G K McNair; Rhiannon C Macefield; Natalie S Blencowe; Sara T Brookes; Jane M Blazeby Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael Brundage; Jane Blazeby; Dennis Revicki; Brenda Bass; Henrica de Vet; Helen Duffy; Fabio Efficace; Madeleine King; Cindy L K Lam; David Moher; Jane Scott; Jeff Sloan; Claire Snyder; Susan Yount; Melanie Calvert Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 4.147