'Trial Exegesis': Methods for Synthesizing Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Data in Trials to Inform Clinical Practice. A Systematic Review

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients' perspective. This study aimed to assess existing literature for completeness of PRO reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PUD.

METHODS

This was a meta-epidemiological, cross-sectional study which assessed completeness of reporting among RCTs addressing management of PUD. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs with a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. These RCTs were assessed for completion of reporting according to the PRO adaptation of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. RCTs were also assessed for Risk of Bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

Masked, duplicate screening of 829 results from our search yielded a final sample of 35 RCTs. The average completeness of reporting was 32.9% according to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Twenty-one (of 35; 60%) of the RCTs were assessed as having 'high' risk of bias and nine (of 35; 25.71%) were assessed as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. Bivariate regression found completeness of reporting to be positively associated with increased PRO follow-up duration, larger sample size, and studies which report conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

RCTs examining the treatment and prevention of PUD with PROs as an outcome measure have deficient reporting and 'high' risk of bias according to the CONSORT-PRO and Cochrane RoB guidelines.

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for new surgical procedures and devices: a systematic review of IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies to inform development of a core outcome set

BACKGROUND

Outcome selection, measurement and reporting for the evaluation of new surgical procedures and devices is inconsistent and lacks standardization. A core outcome set may promote the safe and transparent evaluation of surgical innovations. This systematic review examined outcome selection, measurement and reporting in studies conducted within the IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring) framework to examine current practice and inform the development of a core outcome set for early-phase studies of surgical procedures/devices.

METHODS

Web of Science and Scopus citation searches were performed to identify author-reported IDEAL/IDEAL-D studies for any surgical procedure/device. Outcomes were extracted verbatim, including contextual information regarding outcome selection and measurement. Outcomes were categorized to inform a conceptual framework of outcome domains relevant to evaluating innovation.

RESULTS

Some 48 studies were identified. Outcome selection, measurement and reporting varied widely across studies in different IDEAL stages. From 1737 outcomes extracted, 22 domains specific to evaluating innovation were conceptualized under seven broad categories: procedure completion success/failure; modifications; unanticipated events; surgeons' experiences; patients' experiences; resource use specific to the innovative procedure/device; and other innovation-specific outcomes. Most innovation-specific outcomes were measured and reported in only a small number of studies.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted the need for guidance and standardization in outcome selection and reporting in the evaluation of new surgical procedures/devices. Novel outcome domains specific to innovation have been identified to establish a core outcome set for future evaluations of surgical innovations.

How patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes affect patient-clinician relationships: A systematic review

Introduction:

Many patients use mobile devices to track health conditions by recording patient-generated health data. However, patients and clinicians may disagree how to use these data.

Objective:

To systematically review the literature to identify how patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes collected outside of clinical settings can affect patient–clinician relationships within surgery and primary care.

Methods:

Six research databases were queried for publications documenting the effect of patient-generated health data or patient-reported outcomes on patient–clinician relationships. We conducted thematic synthesis of the results of the included publications.

Results:

Thirteen of the 3204 identified publications were included for synthesis. Three main themes were identified: patient-generated health data supported patient–clinician communication and health awareness, patients desired for their clinicians to be involved with their patient-generated health data, which clinicians had difficulty accommodating, and patient-generated health data platform features may support or hinder patient–clinician collaboration.

Conclusion:

Patient-generated health data and patient-reported outcomes may improve patient health awareness and communication with clinicians but may negatively affect patient–clinician relationships.

The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies.

Methods

Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial.

Results

Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals.

Conclusions

PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste.

Trial registration

Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.