Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1427-1437

  Mercieca Bebber, Rebecca ^a,b   Rouette, Julie ^c   Calvert, Melanie ^d   King, Madeleine T ^a,b   McLeod, Lori ^e   Holch, Patricia ^f,g   Palmer, Michael J ^c   Brundage, Michael ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^f LEEDS METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^g ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CONSORT PRO; Patient reported outcome; Quality of Life; Reporting standards

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SEARCH ENGINE; STANDARD; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BIOASSAY; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS;

ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; HUMANS; PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85011665530     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Altman, D., & Simera, I. (2015). A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the History of Treatment Evaluation. http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/a-history-of-the-evolution-of-guidelines-for-reporting-medical-research-the-long-road-to-the-equator-network/. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
2. Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.
3. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Vol. 340).
4. The CONSORT Group Impact of CONSORT. http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/impact-of-consort. Accessed 8 Nov 2015.
5. Turner, L., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., & Moher, D. (2012). Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Systematic Reviews, 1(60), 2046–4053. (Review).
6. Edwards, J. P., Dharampal, N., Chung, W., Brar, M. S., Ball, C. G., Seto, J., et al. (2015). Has the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in thoracic surgery improved? European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 49(5):1476–1482. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezv375. (Journal article)
7. Lu, J., Gary, K. W., Copolillo, A., Ward, J., Niemeier, J. P., & Lapane, K. L. (2015). Randomized controlled trials in adult traumatic brain injury: a review of compliance to CONSORT statement. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 96(4), 702–714. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.1010.1026. (Epub 2014 Dec 1019).
8. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labelling Claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2016.
9. Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT-PRO extension. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(8), 814–822. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.879.
10. Brundage, M., Bass, B., Davidson, J., Queenan, J., Bezjak, A., Ringash, J., et al. (2011). Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 653–664. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9793-3.
11. Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18(12), 1935–1942. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm121.
12. Calvert, M., Brundage, M., Jacobsen, P. B., Schunemann, H. J., & Efficace, F. (2013). The CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) extension: implications for clinical trials and practice. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-184. (Review)
13. Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd edn.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
14. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR Network) (2016). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/consort-pro/. Accessed 11 July 2016.
15. Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.
16. Thomson Reuters (2014). Journal Citation Reports Science Edition. http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com.proxy.queensu.ca/JCR/JCR?PointOfEntry=Home&SID=3C5UmgmjnhOGsy9bXch. Accessed 30 Nov 2015.
17. Brundage, M., Blazeby, J., Revicki, D., Bass, B., de Vet, H., Duffy, H., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1161–1175. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0252-1.
18. Vodicka, E., Kim, K., Devine, E. B., Gnanasakthy, A., Scoggins, J. F., & Patrick, D. L. (2015). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.1004.1004.
19. Bylicki, O., Gan, H. K., Joly, F., Maillet, D., You, B., & Péron, J. (2014). Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Annals of Oncology, 26(1), 231–237. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu489.
20. Dirven, L., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Reijneveld, J. C., Blazeby, J., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., et al. (2014). The level of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: A systematic review. European Journal of Cancer, 50(14), 2432–2448. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.06.016.
21. Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., Cafaro, V., Eastham, J., Pusic, A., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 30(13), 01090–01097. (Journal article)
22. Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.005.
23. Mercieca-Bebber, R. L., Perreca, A., King, M., Macann, A., Whale, K., Soldati, S., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes in head and neck and thyroid cancer randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of completeness of reporting and impact on interpretation. European Journal of Cancer, 56, 144–161. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2015.12.025.
24. Efficace, F., Fayers, P., Pusic, A., Cemal, Y., Yanagawa, J., Jacobs, M., et al. (2015). Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials. Cancer, 121(18), 3335–3342. doi:10.1002/cncr.29489.
25. Koller, M., Warncke, S., Hjermstad, M. J., Arraras, J., Pompili, C., Harle, A., et al. (2015). Use of the lung cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-LC13 in clinical trials: A systematic review of the literature 20 years after its development. Cancer, 121(24), 4300–4323. doi:10.1002/cncr.29682.
26. Weingartner, V., Dargatz, N., Weber, C., Mueller, D., Stock, S., Voltz, R., et al. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: a structured literature review. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 9(6), 821–829. doi:10.1586/17512433.17512016.11164595.
27. Hartling, L., Ospina, M., Liang, Y., Dryden, D. M., Hooton, N., Krebs Seida, J., et al. (2009). Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ, 339. doi:10.1136/bmj.b4012
28. Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M. R., & King, M. T. (2016). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 6(6). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938.
29. Rouette, J., Blazeby, J., King, M., Calvert, M., Peng, Y., Meyer, R. M., et al. (2015). Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1317–1325. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0871-9.
30. CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Transparent reporting of trials (2013). Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT PRO). http://www.consort-statement.org/extensions?ContentWidgetId=560. Accessed 11 July 2016.
31. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service Resource Resources. http://www.rds-sc.nihr.ac.uk/resources-and-links/. Accessed 11 July 2016.