Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review
Open Access
- 12 January 2009
- Vol. 338 (jan12 1), a3006
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3006
Abstract
Objective To determine how often health surveys and quality of life evaluations reach different conclusions from those of primary efficacy outcomes and whether discordant results make a difference in the interpretation of trial findings.Design Systematic review.Data sources PubMed, contact with authors for missing information, and author survey for unpublished SF-36 data.Study selection Randomised trials with SF-36 outcomes (the most extensively validated and used health survey instrument for appraising quality of life) that were published in 2005 in 22 journals with a high impact factor.Data extraction Analyses on the two composite and eight subdomain SF-36 scores that corresponded to the time and mode of analysis of the primary efficacy outcome.Results Of 1057 screened trials, 52 were identified as randomised trials with SF-36 results (66 separate comparisons). Only eight trials reported all 10 SF-36 scores in the published articles. For 21 of the 66 comparisons, SF-36 results were discordant for statistical significance compared with the results for primary efficacy outcomes. Of 17 statistically significant SF-36 scores where primary outcomes were not also statistically significant in the same direction, the magnitude of effect was small in six, moderate in six, large in three, and not reported in two. Authors modified the interpretation of study findings based on SF-36 results in only two of the 21 discordant cases. Among 100 additional randomly selected trials not reporting any SF-36 information, at least five had collected SF-36 data but only one had analysed it.Conclusions SF-36 measurements sometimes produce different results from those of the primary efficacy outcomes but rarely modify the overall interpretation of randomised trials. Quality of life and health related survey information should be utilised more systematically in randomised trials.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- FDA draft guidance and health-outcomes researchThe Lancet, 2007
- Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence DossierQuality of Life Research, 2007
- Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trialsEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2004
- The challenges and achievements involved in implementing Quality of Life research in cancer clinical trialsEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2003
- SF-36 Health Survey UpdateSpine, 2000
- The standard of reporting of health-related quality of life in clinical cancer trialsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000
- Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic studyBMJ, 1998
- Measuring health-related quality of life in clinical trials that evaluate the role of chemotherapy in cancer treatment.1998
- Users' guides to the medical literature. XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. Evidence-Based Medicine Working GroupJAMA, 1997
- Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the U.K. Medical Research Council experienceEuropean Journal of Cancer, 1997