Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: a potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists

Unobtrusive measurement of gait parameters using seismographs: An observational study

Analyzing irregularities in walking patterns helps detect human locomotion abnormalities that can signal health changes. Traditional observation-based assessments have limitations due to subjective biases and capture only a single time point. Ambient and wearable sensor technologies allow continuous and objective locomotion monitoring but face challenges due to the need for specialized expertise and user compliance. This work proposes a seismograph-based algorithm for quantifying human gait, incorporating a step extraction algorithm derived from mathematical morphologies, with the goal of achieving the accuracy of clinical reference systems. To evaluate our method, we compared the gait parameters of 50 healthy participants, as recorded by seismographs, and those obtained from reference systems (a pressure-sensitive walkway and a camera system). Participants performed four walking tests, including traversing a walkway and completing the timed up-and-go (TUG) test. In our findings, we observed linear relationships with strong positive correlations (R2 > 0.9) and tight 95% confidence intervals for all gait parameters (step time, cycle time, ambulation time, and cadence). We demonstrated that clinical gait parameters and TUG mobility test timings can be accurately derived from seismographic signals, with our method exhibiting no significant differences from established clinical reference systems.

The feasibility and acceptability of collecting psychosocial outcome measures embedded within a precision medicine trial for childhood cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are increasingly being collected within cancer clinical trials, yet limited literature on the feasibility and acceptability of doing so.

METHODS

We collected parent-proxy and adolescent (≥12 years old) PROMs through a longitudinal, psychosocial sub-study ('PRISM-Impact') embedded in a precision medicine trial for children with poor prognosis cancer ('PRISM'). We report on feasibility (response, participation, and attrition rates; follow-up and responding to elevated distress) and acceptability (parents' perceived benefit/burden of participation; and impact on decision to participate in PRISM) of PRISM-Impact.

RESULTS

Over the reporting period, 462 families were eligible for PRISM-Impact. Family and adolescent response rates were 53% and 45%, respectively. Parents whose child had relapsed were more likely to participate in PRISM-Impact than parents whose child had not (p < 0.001). Parent and adolescent attrition rates were 30% and 56% respectively. We conducted 478 calls for intake and to follow-up on missing questionnaires, and 122 calls to respond to elevated distress. Parents reported wanting to participate in PRISM-Impact for altruistic reasons and because they valued psychosocial research. Parents reported little-to-no burden and some benefit from participating in PRISM-Impact, with little change in ratings overtime. Most parents felt that participating in PRISM-Impact did not impact their desire to participate in PRISM (72%), with some feeling more eager to participate (19%).

CONCLUSIONS

PRISM-Impact response rates were comparable to other psycho-oncology studies, despite the poor prognosis population. Integration of PROMs within a paediatric oncology trial is acceptable to parents, and may provide a more comprehensive assessment of the impact of trial participation.

Application of Natural Language Processing in Electronic Health Record Data Extraction for Navigating Prostate Cancer Care: A Narrative Review

Introduction: Natural language processing (NLP)-based data extraction from electronic health records (EHRs) holds significant potential to simplify clinical management and aid research. This review aims to evaluate the current landscape of NLP-based data extraction in prostate cancer (PCa) management. Materials and Methods: We conducted a literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases using the keywords: "Natural Language Processing," "Prostate Cancer," "data extraction," and "EHR" with variations of each. No language or time limits were imposed. All results were collected in a standardized manner, including country of origin, sample size, algorithm, objective of outcome, and model performance. The precision, recall, and the F1 score of studies were collected as a metric of model performance. Results: Of the 14 studies included in the review, 2 articles focused on documenting digital rectal examinations, 1 on identifying and quantifying pain secondary to PCa, 8 on extracting staging/grading information from clinical reports, with an emphasis on TNM-classification, risk stratification, and identifying metastasis, 2 articles focused on patient-centered post-treatment outcomes such as incontinence, erectile, and bowel dysfunction, and 1 on loneliness/social isolation following PCa diagnosis. All models showed moderate to high data annotation/extraction accuracy compared with the gold standard method of manual data extraction by chart review. Despite their potential, NLPs face challenges in handling ambiguous, institution-specific language and context nuances, leading to occasional inaccuracies in clinical data interpretation. Conclusion: NLP-based data extraction has effectively extracted various outcomes from PCa patients' EHRs. It holds the potential for automating outcome monitoring and data collection, resulting in time and labor savings.

15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis

Background

Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies.

Methods

A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL).

Findings

We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations.

Interpretation

Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care.

Funding

None.

Montelukast in paediatric asthma and allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aim to assess the impact of montelukast on paediatric patients with asthma/allergic rhinitis, measured using patient-reported outcome measures, compared with other treatments or placebo.

METHODS

Protocol registration CRD42020216098 (www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). MEDLINE and Embase databases were used to conduct the search. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data, and a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. Meta-analyses were constructed to estimate the standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Out of 3937 articles identified, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria, mostly randomised clinical trials (sample sizes: 21-689 patients). The SMD of change pooled estimators for the global, mental and physical domains of health-related quality of life were not statistically significant. For daytime and night-time symptoms scores, the SMD (95% CI) was in favour of inhaled corticosteroids (-0.12, -0.20- -0.05 and -0.23, -0.41- -0.06, respectively). The pooled estimator for global asthma symptoms was better for montelukast when compared with placebo (0.90, 0.44-1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The synthesis of the available evidence suggests that, in children and adolescents, montelukast was effective in controlling asthma symptoms when compared with placebo, but inhaled corticosteroids were superior in controlling symptoms, especially at night-time. These findings of our systematic review concur with current guidelines for asthma treatment.

Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Upper GI Malignancies

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) conditions vastly affect each individual's physical, social, and emotional status. The decision-making process by the medical personnel about these patients is currently based on a patient's life quality evaluation scale, HRQL scales. By utilizing HRQL scales, a better understanding of the various surgical and non-surgical treatment options, as well as their long-term consequences, can be achieved. In our study, an organ-based approach is used in an attempt to examine and characterized the effect of upper GI surgery on HRQL. Therefore, HRQL scales' function as a prognostic tool is useful, and the need for future research, the creation of valid training programs, and modern guidelines is highlighted.

Big Data in Oncology Nursing Research: State of the Science

OBJECTIVE

To review the state of oncology nursing science as it pertains to big data. The authors aim to define and characterize big data, describe key considerations for accessing and analyzing big data, provide examples of analyses of big data in oncology nursing science, and highlight ethical considerations related to the collection and analysis of big data.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles published by investigators specializing in oncology, nursing, and related disciplines.

CONCLUSION

Big data is defined as data that are high in volume, velocity, and variety. To date, oncology nurse scientists have used big data to predict patient outcomes from clinician notes, identify distinct symptom phenotypes, and identify predictors of chemotherapy toxicity, among other applications. Although the emergence of big data and advances in computational methods provide new and exciting opportunities to advance oncology nursing science, several challenges are associated with accessing and using big data. Data security, research participant privacy, and the underrepresentation of minoritized individuals in big data are important concerns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

With their unique focus on the interplay between the whole person, the environment, and health, nurses bring an indispensable perspective to the interpretation and application of big data research findings. Given the increasing ubiquity of passive data collection, all nurses should be taught the definition, characteristics, applications, and limitations of big data. Nurses who are trained in big data and advanced computational methods will be poised to contribute to guidelines and policies that preserve the rights of human research participants.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

Assessing the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome data in interventional cancer trials: a single institution, retrospective systematic evaluation

BACKGROUND

To understand our performance with respect to the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure (PROM) data, we examined the protocol content, data completeness and publication of PROs from interventional trials conducted at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) and explored factors associated with data missingness and PRO publication.

DESIGN

From local records, we identified closed, intervention trials sponsored by RM that opened after 1995 and collected PROMs as primary, secondary or exploratory outcomes. Protocol data were extracted by two researchers and scored against the SPIRIT-PRO (PRO protocol content checklist; score 0-100, higher scores indicate better completeness). For studies with locally held datasets, the information team summarized for each study, PRO completion defined as the number of expected (as per protocol) PRO measurements versus the number of actual (i.e. completed) PRO measurements captured in the study data set. Relevant publications were identified by searching three online databases and chief investigator request. Data were extracted and each publication scored against the CONSORT-PRO (PRO manuscript content checklist; scored as SPIRIT-PRO above). Descriptive statistics are presented with exploratory comparisons of point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 65 studies were included in the review. Nineteen studies had accessible datasets and 18 studies published at least one article. Fourteen studies published PRO results. Most studies had a clinical (rather than PRO) primary outcome (16/26). Across all studies, responses in respect of 35 of 69 PROMs were published. Trial protocols scored on average 46.7 (range 7.1-92.9) on the SPIRIT-PRO. Among studies with accessible data, half (10/19) had less than 25% missing measurements. Publications scored on average 80.9 (range 36-100%) on the CONSORT-PRO. Studies that published PRO results had somewhat fewer missing measurements (19% [7-32%] vs 60% [- 26 to 146%]). For individual PROMs within studies, missing measurements were lower for those that were published (17% [10-24%] vs 41% [18-63%]). Studies with higher SPIRIT-PRO scores and PROs as primary endpoints (13% [4-22%] vs 39% [10-58%]) had fewer missing measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Missing data may affect publication of PROs. Extent of inclusion of SPIRIT-PRO protocol items and PROs as primary endpoints may improve data completeness. Preliminary evidence from the study suggests a future larger study examining the relationship between PRO completion and publication is warranted.

A review of patient-reported outcomes used for regulatory approval of oncology medicinal products in the European Union between 2017 and 2020

Introduction

Cancer and corresponding available treatments are associated with substantial symptoms and functional limitations. In this context, collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical trials gained special interest and is recommended by regulatory authorities. Within clinical trials framework, PRO may provide evidence to support medicines approval, labeling and marketing claims. This study aims to analyze the existing evidence based on PRO as part of new oncology indications receiving positive opinions issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2020 and to identify PRO related label claims granted.

Methodology

Oncology medicinal products and indications approved by the European Commission following a positive opinion from the EMA between 2017 and 2020 were identified. European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were reviewed for each medicinal product to identify use of PRO and PRO label claims.

Results

A total of 128 oncology indications, corresponding to 76 medicines, were approved; of those, 100 (78.1%) included PRO in the confirmatory clinical trials. Thirty-seven indications were supported by double-blind randomized trials and the remainder 63 by open-label trials. Out of the 104 confirmatory trials analyzed, PRO were defined as a secondary endpoint in 60 studies (57.7%), exploratory in 31 (29.8%) and as both in 13 (12.5%). In total, 54 different PRO measures (PROM) were used, of those 41 (75.9%) were disease-specific measures. Nevertheless, PROM selected relied on the EORTC (41.3%), FACIT (17.1%) and EQ-5D (29.2%) measures. A total of 76 indications (59.4%) had PRO reviewers comments included in the EPAR, however only 22 indications (17.8%) included label claims in the SmPC. The reasons identified in the EMA assessment supporting the exclusion of PRO claims were described for 34 indications (44.7%).

Conclusions

Despite growing recognition of the value of PRO data for the development of improved cancer therapies, PRO implementation remains challenging. The main reasons identified in our study are related with study design, missing data, study conduct and PROM selection.

Important questions for the malignant hematologist to consider when designing or evaluating a study with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which are measures of symptom burden, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and therapy effectiveness have become increasingly important in clinical research. They are unique in that they are reported directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, thereby avoiding clinician bias. With an increased focus on the patient at the center of health care, PROMs have been increasingly incorporated into clinical research, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines. Despite the recognition of the importance of including PROMs into clinical haematologic cancer research, barriers have prevented their integration into cancer research. This review highlights the value of including PROMs into clinical haematologic cancer research and addresses the methodological challenges in using and evaluating PROMs. We propose important questions for the malignant haematologist to consider when designing or evaluating a study that includes PROMs.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

Introduction

Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018.

Method

Annual workshops were conducted 2011–2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann–Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall.

Results

Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: ‘specify PRO concepts/domains’ (p = 0.05); ‘methods for handling missing data’ (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03127-w.

A machine learning approach to differentiate between COVID-19 and influenza infection using synthetic infection and immune response data

Data analysis is widely used to generate new insights into human disease mechanisms and provide better treatment methods. In this work, we used the mechanistic models of viral infection to generate synthetic data of influenza and COVID-19 patients. We then developed and validated a supervised machine learning model that can distinguish between the two infections. Influenza and COVID-19 are contagious respiratory illnesses that are caused by different pathogenic viruses but appeared with similar initial presentations. While having the same primary signs COVID-19 can produce more severe symptoms, illnesses, and higher mortality. The predictive model performance was externally evaluated by the ROC AUC metric (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) on 100 virtual patients from each cohort and was able to achieve at least AUC = 91% using our multiclass classifier. The current investigation highlighted the ability of machine learning models to accurately identify two different diseases based on major components of viral infection and immune response. The model predicted a dominant role for viral load and productively infected cells through the feature selection process.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy. Protocol of a Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study

About 50% of patients with cancer are expected to need radiotherapy (RT), and the majority of these are older. To improve outcomes for older patients with cancer, geriatric assessment (GA) with management (GAM) is highly recommended. Evidence for its benefits is still scarce, in particular for patients receiving RT. We report the protocol of a cluster-randomised pilot study designed to test the effect, feasibility and health economic impact of a GAM intervention for patients ≥65 years, referred for palliative or curative RT. The randomising units are municipalities and city districts. The intervention is municipality-based and carried out in collaboration between hospital and municipal health services from the start of RT to eight weeks after the end of RT. Its main constituents are an initial GA followed by measures adapted to individual patients' impairments and needs, systematic symptom assessments and regular follow-up by municipal cancer nurses, appointed to coordinate the patient's care. Follow-up includes at least one weekly phone call, and a house call four weeks after the end of RT. All patients receive an individually adapted physical exercise program and nutritional counselling. Detailed guidelines for management of patients' impairments are provided. Patients allocated to the intervention group will be compared to controls receiving standard care. The primary outcome is physical function assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Secondary outcomes are global quality of life, objectively tested physical performance and use of health care services. Economic evaluation will be based on a comparison of costs and effects (measured by the main outcome measures). Feasibility will be assessed with mixed methodology, based on log notes and questionnaires filled in by the municipal nurses and interviews with patients and nurses. The study is carried out at two Norwegian RT centres. It was opened in May 2019. Follow-up will proceed until June 2022. Statistical analyses will start by the end of 2021. We expect the trial to provide important new knowledge about the effect, feasibility and costs of a GAM intervention for older patients receiving RT. Trial registration: ClinTrials.gov, ID NCT03881137, initial release 13th of March 2019.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Background

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of treatment response in heart failure. We assessed temporal trends in and factors associated with inclusion of PROs in heart failure randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and July 2020 in journals with an impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere‐Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with PRO inclusion. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. Of 417 RCTs included, PROs were reported in 226 (54.2%; 95% CI, 49.3%–59.1%), with increased reporting between 2000 and 2020 (P<0.001). The odds of PRO inclusion were greater in RCTs that were published in recent years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per year, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; P<0.001), multicenter (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03–3.46; P=0.040), medium‐sized (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26–4.40; P=0.008), coordinated in Central and South America (aOR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.14–30.97; P=0.035), and tested health service (aOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49–6.55; P=0.003), device/surgical (aOR, 6.66; 95% CI, 3.15–14.05; P<0.001), or exercise (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.81–12.00; P=0.001) interventions. RCTs reported a median of 4 (interquartile interval , 3–6) of a possible of 11 CONSORT PRO items.

Conclusions

Just over half of all heart failure RCTs published in high impact factor journals between 2000 and 2020 included PROs, with increased inclusion of PROs over time. Trials that were large, tested pharmaceutical interventions, and coordinated in North America / Europe had lower adjusted odds of reporting PROs relative to other trials. The quality of PRO reporting was modest.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Clinical research associates experience with missing patient reported outcomes data in cancer randomized controlled trials

Background

Missing patient reported outcomes data threaten the validity of PRO‐specific findings and conclusions from randomized controlled trials by introducing bias due to data missing not at random. Clinical Research Associates are a largely unexplored source for informing understanding of potential causes of missing PRO data. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe factors that influence missing PRO data, as revealed through the lived experience of CRAs.

Methods

Maximum variation sampling was used to select CRAs having a range of experiences with missing PRO data from academic or nonacademic centers in different geographic locations of Canada. Semistructured interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to descriptive phenomenology.

Results

Eleven CRAs were interviewed. Analysis revealed several factors that influence missing PRO data that were organized within themes. PROs for routine clinical care compete with PROs for RCTs. Both the paper and electronic formats have benefits and drawbacks. Missing PRO data are influenced by characteristics of the instruments and of the patients. Assessment of PROs at progression of disease is particularly difficult. Deficiencies in center research infrastructure can contribute. CRAs develop relationships with patients that may help reduce missing PRO data. It is not always possible to provide sufficient time to complete the instrument. There is a need for field guidance and a motivation among CRAs to contribute their knowledge to address issues.

Conclusion

These results enhance understanding of factors influencing missing PRO data and have important implications for designing operational solutions to improve data quality on cancer RCTs.

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects

BACKGROUND

Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs.

DISCUSSION

The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.

What is the future of patient-reported outcomes in sickle-cell disease?

INTRODUCTION

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a complex, chronic disease caused by abnormal polymerization of hemoglobin, which leads to severe pain episodes, fatigue, and end-organ damage. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have emerged as a critical tool for measuring SCD disease severity and response to treatment.

AREAS COVERED

Authors review the key issues involved when deciding to use a PRO in a clinical trial. We describe the most highly recommended generic and disease-specific PRO tools in SCD and discuss the challenges of incorporating them in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

PRO measures are essential to incorporate into SCD clinical trials either as primary or secondary outcomes. The use of PRO measures in SCD facilitates a patient-centered approach, which is likely to lead to improved outcomes. Significant challenges remain in adapting PRO tools to routine clinical use and in developing countries.

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.

METHODS

We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.

RESULTS

Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training

AIMS

To explore cancer trial coordinators' roles and challenges in administering patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, and establish what PRO-specific training and guidance they received and needed.

METHODS

Eligible cancer trial coordinators experienced with PRO assessment from approved Australian sites participated in an audio-recorded, semi-structured interview (transcribed verbatim). Recruitment continued until data saturation. Transcripts underwent content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty coordinators participated (professional training: nursing (n = 12), science/research (n = 4), both (n = 4)). PRO administration formed a minor component of most (85%) coordinators' roles. PRO administration challenges included managing 'English second language' participants, participants' companions who attempted to complete questionnaires, burdensome questionnaires, and balancing their duty of care against trial requirements. Coordinators reported inconsistencies in PRO administration, which appeared to arise as a result of confusion and inconsistent or contradictory PRO training. Inconsistencies concerned whether/when they explained the purpose of PRO assessment, which participants they approached to complete PROs, and whether they used PRO trial data to inform care.Coordinators received PRO training from various sources; most commonly study-specific start-up meetings (45%) or from colleagues (30%). Two received no PRO-specific training. Despite the challenges reported, many (55%) felt they did not need further PRO training.

CONCLUSION

Trial coordinators receive inconsistent PRO-specific training and are often unclear how to prioritise different aspects of data quality when faced with everyday challenges, leading to inconsistent methods, missing data, poor quality data, and even bias. Agreement on how coordinators should prioritise the requirements of PRO studies is a necessary pre-requisite for the development of much-needed, consensus-based PRO administration guidelines.

Evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study qualitative protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly included within cancer clinical trials. If appropriately collected, analysed and transparently reported, these data might provide invaluable evidence to inform patient care. However, there is mounting indication that the design and reporting of PRO data in cancer trials may be suboptimal. This programme of research will establish via three interlinked studies whether these findings are applicable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how to best enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported in clinical trials. This study will explore with key stakeholders factors that influence optimal PRO protocol content, implementation and reporting and make recommendations for training and guidance.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Semistructured interviews will be conducted with members of key stakeholder groups. The purposive sample of up to 48 participants will include: (1) trial chief investigators, trial management group members, statisticians and research nurses of cancer trials including primary or secondary PRO recruited via the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Clinical Studies Group and Consumer Liaison Group and the UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered UK Clinical Trial Unit Network; (2) NCRI Consumer Liaison Group members; (3) international experts in PRO oncology trial design; and (4) journal editors and funding bodies. Data will be analysed using directed thematic analysis employing a coding frame and modified as analysis progresses. Formal triangulation of coding and member checking will be employed to enhance credibility.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee (Ref: ERN_17-0085). Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, peer-reviewed journals, patient groups and social media (@CPROR_UoB; http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpror).

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016036533.

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

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomised-controlled 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.

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Completeness of Outcomes Description Reported in Low Back Pain Rehabilitation Interventions: A Survey of 185 Randomized Trials

Purpose: To assess reporting completeness of the most frequent outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation interventions for mechanical low back pain. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of RCTs included in all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published up to May 2013. Two authors independently evaluated the type and frequency of each outcome measure reported, the methods used to measure outcomes, the completeness of outcome reporting using a eight-item checklist, and the proportion of outcomes fully replicable by an independent assessor. Results: Our literature search identified 11 SRs, including 185 RCTs. Thirty-six different outcomes were investigated across all RCTs. The 2 most commonly reported outcomes were pain (n=165 RCTs; 89.2%) and disability (n=118 RCTs; 63.8%), which were assessed by 66 and 44 measurement tools, respectively. Pain and disability outcomes were found replicable in only 10.3% (n=17) and 10.2% (n=12) of the RCTs, respectively. Only 40 RCTs (21.6%) distinguished between primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: A large number of outcome measures and a myriad of measurement instruments were used across all RCTs. The reporting was largely incomplete, suggesting an opportunity for a standardized approach to reporting in rehabilitation science.

Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected in clinical trials should be administered in a standardised way across sites and routinely screened for avoidable missing data in order to maximise data quality/minimise risk of bias. Recent qualitative findings, however, have raised concerns about the consistency of PROM administration in UK trials. The purpose of this study was to determine the generalisability of these findings across the wider community of trial personnel.

DESIGN

Online cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks.

PARTICIPANTS

Research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials collecting PROMs.

ANALYSIS

We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. Factors associated with the management of missing PRO data were explored using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Survey data from 767 respondents supported the generalisability of qualitative study findings, suggesting inconsistencies in PROM administration with regard to: the level of assistance given to trial participants; the timing of PROM completion in relation to the clinical consultation; and the management of missing data. Having ≥10 years experience in a research role was significantly associated with the appropriate management of missing PROM data (OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.82), p=0.035). There was a consensus that more PROM guidance was needed in future trials and agreement between professional groups about the necessary components.

CONCLUSIONS

There are inconsistencies in the way PROMs are administered by trial staff. Such inconsistencies may reduce the quality of data and have the potential to introduce bias. There is a need for improved guidance in future trials that support trial personnel in conducting optimal PROM data collection to inform patient care.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported.

HYPOTHESIS

Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016036533.

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

METHODS

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

RESULTS

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.

Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals

Understanding the human experience is no longer an outcome explored strictly by social and behavioral researchers. Increasingly, biomedical researchers are also including patient reported outcomes (PROs) in their clinical research studies not only due to calls for increased patient engagement in research but also healthcare. Collecting PROs in clinical research studies offers a lens into the patient's unique perspective providing important information to industry sponsors and the FDA. Approximately 30% of trials include PROs as primary or secondary endpoints and a quarter of FDA new drug, device and biologic applications include PRO data to support labeling claims. In this paper PRO, represents any information obtained directly from the patient or their proxy, without interpretation by another individual to ascertain their health, evaluate symptoms or conditions and extends the reference of PRO, as defined by the FDA, to include other sources such as patient diaries. Consumers and clinicians consistently report that PRO data are valued, and can aide when deciding between treatment options; therefore an integral part of clinical research. However, little guidance exists for clinical research professionals (CRPs) responsible for collecting PRO data on the best practices to ensure quality data collection so that an accurate assessment of the patient's view is collected. Therefore the purpose of this work was to develop and validate a checklist to guide quality collection of PRO data. The checklist synthesizes best practices from published literature and expert opinions addressing practical and methodological challenges CRPs often encounter when collecting PRO data in research settings.

Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal ‘PRO alerts’: psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39–50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient.

Conclusions

Research personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias.

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials

BACKGROUND

Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys.

RESULTS

Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

Systematic evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols

Background

Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols.

Methods and Findings

We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the ‘Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials’ (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16–41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4–18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively ‘complete’ using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items.

Conclusions

The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: a systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests there are inconsistencies in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment and reporting in clinical trials, which may limit the use of these data to inform patient care. For trials with a PRO endpoint, routine inclusion of key PRO information in the protocol may help improve trial conduct and the reporting and appraisal of PRO results; however, it is currently unclear exactly what PRO-specific information should be included. The aim of this review was to summarize the current PRO-specific guidance for clinical trial protocol developers.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane Library databases (inception to February 2013) for PRO-specific guidance regarding trial protocol development. Further guidance documents were identified via Google, Google scholar, requests to members of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trials units and international experts. Two independent investigators undertook title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction, with a third involved in the event of disagreement. 21,175 citations were screened and 54 met the inclusion criteria. Guidance documents were difficult to access: electronic database searches identified just 8 documents, with the remaining 46 sourced elsewhere (5 from citation tracking, 27 from hand searching, 7 from the grey literature review and 7 from experts). 162 unique PRO-specific protocol recommendations were extracted from included documents. A further 10 PRO recommendations were identified relating to supporting trial documentation. Only 5/162 (3%) recommendations appeared in ≥50% of guidance documents reviewed, indicating a lack of consistency.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO-specific protocol guidelines were difficult to access, lacked consistency and may be challenging to implement in practice. There is a need to develop easily accessible consensus-driven PRO protocol guidance. Guidance should be aimed at ensuring key PRO information is routinely included in appropriate trial protocols, in order to facilitate rigorous collection/reporting of PRO data, to effectively inform patient care.

An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research

Clinical outcomes, such as quantifying the extent of visual field loss by automated perimetry, are valued highly by health professionals, but such measures do not capture the impact of the condition on a patient's life. Patient-reported outcomes describe any report or measure of health reported by the patient, without external interpretation by a clinician or researcher. In this review, we discuss the value of the measures that capture this information (patient-reported outcome measures; PROMs), and why they are important to both the clinician and the researcher. We also consider issues around developing or selecting a PROM for ophthalmic research, the emerging challenges around conducting and reporting PROMs in clinical trials and highlight best practice for their use. Search terms for this review comprised: (1) (patient-reported outcomes OR patient-reported outcome measures) AND (2) randomised controlled trials AND (3) limited to ophthalmic conditions. These terms were expanded as follows: ((('patients'(MeSH Terms) OR 'patients'(All Fields) OR 'patient'(All Fields)) AND ('research report'(MeSH Terms) OR ('research'(All Fields) AND 'report'(All Fields)) OR 'research report'(All Fields) OR 'reported'(All Fields)) AND outcomes(All Fields)) OR (('patients'(MeSH Terms) OR 'patients'(All Fields) OR 'patient'(All Fields)) AND ('research report'(MeSH Terms) OR ('research'(All Fields) AND 'report'(All Fields)) OR 'research report'(All Fields) OR 'reported'(All Fields) AND ('outcome assessment (health care)'(MeSH Terms) OR ('outcome'(All Fields) AND 'assessment'(All Fields) AND '(health'(All Fields) AND 'care)'(All Fields)) OR 'outcome assessment (health care)'(All Fields) OR ('outcome'(All Fields) AND 'measures'(All Fields)) OR 'outcome measures'(All Fields)))) AND ('randomized controlled trial'(Publication Type) OR 'randomized controlled trials as topic'(MeSH Terms) OR 'randomised controlled trials'(All Fields) OR 'randomized controlled trials'(All Fields)) AND (ophth*(All Fields)). The authors also utilised the extensive non-ophthalmic literature and online resources relating to PROs and PROMs to inform this review.

The need for increased harmonisation of clinical trials and economic evaluations

Despite the increasing number of protocol and reporting guidelines available to trialists, there is still little guidance for protocol writers on the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and economic assessments alongside clinical trials. It is unsurprising, therefore, that trial protocols present disproportionately less information for the economic evaluation component than for clinical outcomes. Costing methodologies, generalisability considerations, methods to address sensitive patient-reported outcome information and missing data are often insufficiently described in the trial protocol. The paper illustrates these shortcomings with specific examples and makes a case for shifting researchers' attention from the reporting to the design stage of trial-based economic evaluation to promote the validity, generalisability and accountability of trial-based economic evaluations.

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials: is 'in-trial' guidance lacking? a systematic review

Background

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly assessed in clinical trials, and guidelines are available to inform the design and reporting of such trials. However, researchers involved in PRO data collection report that specific guidance on ‘in-trial’ activity (recruitment, data collection and data inputting) and the management of ‘concerning’ PRO data (i.e., data which raises concern for the well-being of the trial participant) appears to be lacking. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent and nature of published guidelines addressing these areas.

Methods and Findings

Systematic review of 1,362 articles identified 18 eligible papers containing ‘in-trial’ guidelines. Two independent authors undertook a qualitative content analysis of the selected papers. Guidelines presented in each of the articles were coded according to an a priori defined coding frame, which demonstrated reliability (pooled Kappa 0.86–0.97), and validity (<2% residual category coding). The majority of guidelines present were concerned with ‘pre-trial’ activities (72%), for example, outcome measure selection and study design issues, or ‘post-trial’ activities (16%) such as data analysis, reporting and interpretation. ‘In-trial’ guidelines represented 9.2% of all guidance across the papers reviewed, with content primarily focused on compliance, quality control, proxy assessment and reporting of data collection. There were no guidelines surrounding the management of concerning PRO data.

Conclusions

The findings highlight there are minimal in-trial guidelines in publication regarding PRO data collection and management in clinical trials. No guidance appears to exist for researchers involved with the handling of concerning PRO data. Guidelines are needed, which support researchers to manage all PRO data appropriately and which facilitate unbiased data collection.