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
Open Access
- 14 September 2015
- Vol. 121 (18), 3335-3342
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29489
Abstract
BACKGROUNDThe main objectives of this study were to identify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint across a wide range of cancer specialties and to evaluate the completeness of PRO reporting according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. METHODSRCTs with a PRO endpoint that had been performed across several cancer specialties and published between 2004 and 2013 were considered. Studies were evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including the CONSORT PRO extension and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias of RCTs. Analyses were also conducted by the type of PRO endpoint (primary vs secondary) and by the cancer disease site. RESULTSA total of 56,696 potentially eligible records were scrutinized, and 557 RCTs with a PRO evaluation, enrolling 254,677 patients overall, were identified. PROs were most frequently used in RCTs of breast (n = 123), lung (n = 85), and colorectal cancer (n = 66). Overall, PROs were secondary endpoints in 421 RCTs (76%). Four of 6 evaluated CONSORT PRO items were documented in less than 50% of the RCTs. The level of reporting was higher in RCTs with a PRO as a primary endpoint. The presence of a supplementary report was the only statistically significant factor associated with greater completeness of reporting for both RCTs with PROs as primary endpoints ( = .19, P = .001) and RCTs with PROs as secondary endpoints ( = .30, P < .001). CONCLUSIONSImplementation of the CONSORT PRO extension is equally important across all cancer specialties. Its use can also contribute to revealing the robust PRO design of some studies, which might be obscured by poor outcome reporting. Cancer 2015;121:3335-3342. (c) 2015 American Cancer Society. Five hundred fifty-seven randomized controlled trials with a patient-reported outcome endpoint have been conducted across several cancer specialties within a decade. Overall, the quality of reporting is generally poor according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials patient-reported outcome extension; however, reporting is higher in randomized controlled trials with a patient-reported outcome as a primary endpoint.Keywords
Funding Information
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Quality of Life Group
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journalsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012
- Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trialBMJ, 2011
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Health-Related Quality of Life in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Update of a Systematic Review on Methodologic Issues in Randomized Controlled TrialsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2011
- Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchersQuality of Life Research, 2010
- The Missing Voice of Patients in Drug-Safety ReportingThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Has the quality of health-related quality of life reporting in cancer clinical trials improved over time? Towards bridging the gap with clinical decision makingAnnals Of Oncology, 2007
- Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled TrialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1996
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996