Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 6. Outcome measures in the real world

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 90, Issue , 2017, Pages 99-107

  Welsing, Paco M ^a   Oude Rengerink, Katrien ^a   Collier, Sue ^b   Eckert, Laurent ^c   van Smeden, Maarten ^a   Ciaglia, Antonio ^d   Nachbaur, Gaelle ^e   Trelle, Sven ^f   Taylor, Aliki J ^g   Egger, Matthias ^f   Goetz, Iris ^h  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^c SANOFI   (France)

^d International Alliance of Patients Organizations   (United Kingdom)

^e Epidemiology Department   (France)

^f UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^g Takeda Global Research and Development Centre Europe   (United Kingdom)

^h ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

Generalizability; Outcome measurement; Pragmatic trial; Real world evidence

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FUNCTIONAL STATUS; HUMAN; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STANDARDIZATION; WELLBEING; BIOASSAY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS;

DECISION MAKING; ENDPOINT DETERMINATION; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85021190910     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.022     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Schwartz, D., Lellouch, J., Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 499–505.
2. Sackett, D.L., Explanatory and pragmatic clinical trials: a primer and application to a recent asthma trial. Pol Arch Med Wewn 121 (2011), 259–263.
3. Zuidgeest, M.G.P., Goetz, I., Groenwold, R.H.H., Irving, E., van Thiel, G.J.M.W., Grobbee, D.E., Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 1. Introduction. J Clin Epidemiol 88 (2017), 7–13.
4. Loudon, K., Treweek, S., Sullivan, F., Donnan, P., Thorpe, K.E., Zwarenstein, M., The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ, 350, 2015, h2147.
5. McCambridge, J., Witton, J., Elbourne, D.R., Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 267–277.
6. Zwarenstein, M., Treweek, S., Gagnier, J.J., Altman, D.G., Tunis, S., Haynes, B., et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ, 337, 2008, a2390.
7. Boers, M., Kirwan, J.R., Wells, G., Beaton, D., Gossece, L., d'Agostino, M.A., et al. Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT Filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 745–753.
8. EUnetHTA: Endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. Available at http://www.eunethta.eu/eunethta-guidelines. Accessed May 29, 2017.
9. Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. 2009, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
10. Bakerly, N.D., Woodcock, A., New, J.P., Gibson, J.M., Wu, W., Leather, D., et al. The Salford Lung Study protocol: a pragmatic, randomised phase III real-world effectiveness trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir Res, 16, 2015, 101.
11. De Gruttola, V.G., Clax, P., DeMets, D.L., Downing, G.J., Ellenberg, S.S., Friedman, L., et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials. Summary of a National Institutes of Health Workshop. Contemp Clin Trials 22 (2001), 485–502.
12. Chokshi, D.A., Avorn, J., Kesselheim, A.S., Designing comparative effectiveness research on prescription drugs: lessons from the clinical trial literature. Health Aff 29 (2010), 1842–1848.
13. Murad, M.H., Shah, N.D., Van Houten, H.K., Ziegenfuss, J.Y., Deming, J.R., Beebe, T.J., et al. Individuals with diabetes preferred that future trials use patient-important outcomes and provide pragmatic inferences. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 743–748.
14. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA level and CD4 count as prognostic markers and surrogate end points: a meta-analysis. HIV Surrogate Marker Collaborative Group. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 16 (2004), 1123–1133.
15. Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC), Vandenhende, M.A., Ingle, S., May, M., Chene, G., Zangerle, R., Van Sighem, A., et al. Impact of low-level viremia on clinical and virological outcomes in treated HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS 29 (2015), 373–383.
16. Basch, E., New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annu Rev Med 65 (2014), 307–317.
17. Lipscomb, J., Reeve, B.B., Clauser, S.B., Abrams, J.S., Bruner, D.W., Burke, L.B., et al. Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. J Clin Oncol 25 (2007), 5133–5140.
18. Osoba, D., King, M., Meaningful differences. Fayers, P., Hays, R.D., (eds.) Assessing quality of life in clinical trials, 2005, Oxford Press, New York, NY, 244–257.
19. Kroenke, K., Monahan, P.O., Kean, J., Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 1085–1092.
20. Wu, A.W., Kharrazi, H., Boulware, L.E., Snyder, C.F., Measure once, cut twice adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol 66:8 Suppl (2013), S12–S20.
21. Available at www.comet-initiative.org. Accessed May 29, 2017.
22. Porter, M.E., Larsson, S., Lee, T.H., Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med 374 (2016), 504–506.
23. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/company-beta/2760048/. Accessed May 29, 2017.
24. Available at http://www.healthmeasures.net/. Accessed May 29, 2017.
25. Available at https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/cores/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed May 29, 2017.
26. Available at http://www.cosmin.nl. Accessed May 29, 2017.
27. Eldessouki, R., Smith, M.D., Health care system information sharing: a step toward better health globally. Value Health Reg Issues 1 (2012), 118–129.
28. Available at http://www.ispor.org/HTARoadmaps/Default.asp. Accessed May 29, 2017.
29. Available at http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp. Accessed May 29, 2017.
30. Pfaar, O., Anders, C., Klimek, L., Clinical outcome measures of specific immunotherapy. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 9 (2009), 208–213.
31. Bender, R., Lange, S., Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001), 343–349.
32. Mascha, E.J., Turan, A., Joint hypothesis testing and gatekeeping procedures for studies with multiple endpoints. Anesth Analg 114 (2012), 1304–1317.
33. General Considerations for Clinical Trials (ICH Topic E 8). Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/. Accessed May 29, 2017.
34. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. EMA 2005, Guidance document ref nr: CPMP/EWP/139391/04, Available at http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_001238.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580032ec4.
35. Janse, A.J., Gemke, R.J., Uiterwaal, C.S., van der Tweel, I., Kimpen, J.L., Sinnema, G., Quality of life: patients and doctors don't always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004), 653–661.
36. Detmar, S.B., Muller, M.J., Schornagel, J.H., Wever, L.D., Aaronson, N.K., Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication. JAMA 288 (2008), 3027–3034.
37. Arora, N.K., Jensen, R.E., Sulayman, N., Hamilton, A.S., Potosky, A.L., Patient-physician communication about health-related quality-of-life problems: are non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors willing to talk?. J Clin Oncol 31 (2013), 3964–3970.
38. Petersen, M.A., Larsen, H., Pedersen, L., Sonne, N., Groenvold, M., Assessing health-related quality of life in palliative care: comparing patient and physician assessments. Eur J Cancer 42 (2006), 1159–1166.
39. Pisa, G., Eichmann, F., Hupfer, S., Assessing patient preferences in heart failure using conjoint methodology. Patient Prefer Adherence 9 (2015), 1233–1241.
40. Kirwan, J., Minnock, P., Adebajo, A., Bresnihan, B., Choy, E., de Wit, M., et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient-centred outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 34 (2007), 1174–1177.
41. Beaton, D.E., Bombardier, C., Katz, J.N., Wright, J.G., A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001), 1204–1217.
42. Walton, M.K., Powers, J.H., Hobart, J., Patrick, D., Marquis, P., Vamvakas, S., et al. ISPOR TASK FORCE report clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation—report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment—emerging good practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. Value Health 18 (2015), 741–752.
43. Mokkink, L.B., Terwee, C.B., Patrick, D.L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P.W., Knol, D.L., et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemology 63 (2010), 737–745.
44. Reeve, B.B., Wyrwich, K.W., Wu, A.W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C.B., Snyder, C.F., et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22 (2013), 1889–1905.
45. Oude Rengerink, K., Kalkman, S., Collier, S., Ciaglia, A., Worsley, S.D., Lightbourne, A., et al. Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 89 (2017), 173–180.
46. Worsley, S.D., Oude Rengerink, K., Irving, E., Lejeune, S., Mol, K., Collier, S., et al. Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection. J Clin Epidemiol 88 (2017), 14–20.
47. Curtis, J.R., Yang, S., Chen, L., Pope, J.E., Keystone, E.C., Haraoui, B., et al. Determining the minimally important difference in the clinical disease activity index for improvement and worsening in early rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 67 (2015), 1345–1353.
48. Conijn, A.P., Jonkers, W., Rouwet, E.V., Vahl, A.C., Reekers, J.A., Koelemay, M.J., Introducing the concept of the minimally important difference to determine a clinically relevant change on patient-reported outcome measures in patients with intermittent claudication. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38 (2015), 1112–1118.
49. Altman, D.G., Royston, P., The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ, 332, 2006, 1080.
50. Ricketts, K., Williams, M., Liu, Z.W., Gibson, A., Automated estimation of disease recurrence in head and neck cancer using routine healthcare data. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 117 (2014), 412–424.
51. Ananthakrishnan, A.N., Cagan, A., Cai, T., Gainer, V.S., Shaw, S.Y., Savova, G., et al. Identification of nonresponse to treatment using narrative data in an electronic health record inflammatory bowel disease cohort. Inflamm Bowel Dis 22 (2016), 151–158.
52. Rubbo, B., Fitzpatrick, N.K., Denaxas, S., Daskalopoulou, M., Yu, N., Patel, R.S., et al. Use of electronic health records to ascertain, validate and phenotype acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and recommendations. Int J Cardiol 187 (2015), 705–711.
53. Chubak, J., Pocobelli, G., Weiss, N.S., Tradeoffs between accuracy measures for electronic health care data algorithms. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 343–349.e2.
54. Gravel, J., Opatrny, L., Shapiro, S., The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say?. Clin Trials 4 (2007), 350–356.
55. Ware, J.H., Hamel, M.B., Pragmatic trials—guides to better patient care?. N Engl J Med 364 (2011), 1685–1687.
56. van Staa, T.P., Dyson, L., McCann, G., Padmanabhan, S., Belatri, R., Goldacre, B., et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 18 (2014), 1–146.
57. Minns Lowe, C.J., Wilson, M.S., Sackley, C.M., Barker, K.L., Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial. Clin Rehabil 25 (2011), 264–274.
58. Buzkova, P., Measurement error and outcomes defined by exceeding a threshold: biased findings in comparative effectiveness trials. Pharm Stat 11 (2012), 429–441.
59. Lachin, J.M., The role of measurement reliability in clinical trials. Clin Trials 1 (2004), 553–566.
60. Pogue, J., Walter, S.D., Yusuf, S., Evaluating the benefit of event adjudication of cardiovascular outcomes in large simple RCTs. Clin Trials 6 (2009), 239–251.
61. Sterne, J.A., White, I.R., Carlin, J.B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M.G., et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. Br Med J, 338, 2009, b2393.
62. Rothwell, P.M., Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomized controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet 365 (2005), 176–186.