A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: Implications for generalisability and clinical practice

被引：26

作者：

Mercieca-Bebber R. ^{[1
,2
]}

Friedlander M. ^{[3
,4
]}

Calvert M. ^{[5
]}

Stockler M. ^{[3
,4
]}

Kyte D. ^{[5
]}

Kok P.-S. ^{[3
,4
]}

King M.T. ^{[1
,2
,4
]}

机构：

[1] Central Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW

[2] Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O’Brien Lifehouse C39Z, Sydney, NSW

[3] NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW

[4] Australian New Zealand Gynecological Oncology Group (ANZGOG), Camperdown, NSW

[5] Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham

来源：

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes | / 1卷 / 1期

关键词：

Missing data; Ovarian neoplasms; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life; Reporting;

D O I：

10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomisedcontrolled trial (RCT) publications, describe PRO compliance, and explore potential relationships among these and completeness of PRO protocol content. Methods: Publications of Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified by Medline and Cochrane systematic search: January 2000 to February 2016. Two reviewers determined the number of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO Extension items addressed in publications. Compliance rates (defined as the proportion of participants included in the principal PRO analysis, of those from whom PRO assessments were expected) were extracted. The relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and compliance rates was explored using scatter plots. Additionally CONSORT-PRO score and PRO compliance rates respectively were compared with corresponding PRO protocol scores obtained from a previous study. Results: Thirty-six eligible RCTs (n = 33 with secondary PRO endpoint) were identified and analysed. The average number of CONSORT-PRO items addressed in publications was 6.7 (48%; Range 0–13.5/14). Three RCTs did not report PRO results; in 1 case due to poor compliance. Some compliance information was reported in 26 RCTs, but was considered complete for only 10 (28%) RCTs. Compliance rates were poor overall, ranging from 59 to 83%; therefore missing PRO data from 17 to 41% of participants in these trials could have been avoided. Of the 26 (73%) RCTs for which PRO protocol completeness scores were available, 6 RCTs reported complete compliance information and the 3 of these RCTs with highest PRO compliance had highest protocol checklist scores. (Continued on next page) Conclusions: Few RCTs reported PRO compliance information in a manner enabling assessment of the generalisability of PRO results. This information is particularly important in RCTs of advanced ovarian cancer because it is important to be able to determine if missing data was due to worsening illness compared to methodological issues. Poor compliance appeared related to poor PRO protocol content, and in one case prevented PRO results from being reported, highlighting the need to address compliance strategies in the protocol. Adhering to protocol and CONSORT-PRO reporting guidance should improve PRO implementation and reporting respectively in ovarian cancer RCTs and allow results to meaningfully inform clinical practice. © The Author(s).

引用

共 35 条

[11]

Ovarian Cancer Endpoints Workshop, (2006)

[12]

Friedlander M., Mercieca-Bebber R., King M., Patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials-lost opportunities and lessons learned, Annals of Oncology, 27, 1, (2016)

[13]

Kyte D., Ives J., Draper H., Keeley T., Calvert M., Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: A potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and Trialists, Plos One, 8, 10, (2013)

[14]

Ioannidis J.P.A., Greenland S., Hlatky M.A., Khoury M.J., Macleod M.R., Moher D., Et al., Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis, The Lancet, 383, 9912, pp. 166-175, (2014)

[15]

Mercieca-Bebber R., Palmer M.J., Brundage M., Calvert M., Stockler M.R., King M.T., 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, (2016)

[16]

Fairclough D.L., Peterson H.F., Chang V., Why are missing quality of life data a problem in clinical trials of cancer therapy?, Statistics in Medicine, 17, 5-7, pp. 667-677, (1998)

[17]

Bernhard J., Cella D.F., Coates A.S., Fallowfield L., Ganz P.A., Moinpour C.M., Et al., Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: Serious problems and challenges, Statistics in Medicine, 17, 5-7, pp. 517-532, (1998)

[18]

Osoba D., Bezjak A., Brundage M., Zee B., Tu D., Pater J., Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: Basic approach of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group, European Journal of Cancer, 41, 2, pp. 280-287, (2005)

[19]

Calvert M., Blazeby J., Altman D.G., Et al., Reporting of patientreported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT-PRO extension, JAMA, 309, 8, pp. 814-822, (2013)

[20]

Efficace F., Fayers P., Pusic A., Cemal Y., Yanagawa J., Jacobs M., Et al., 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, pp. 3335-3342, (2015)

← 1 2 3 4 →