Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 8 (4), e60684

Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Clinical Trials: Is 'In-Trial' Guidance Lacking? A Systematic Review

Affiliations
Review

Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Clinical Trials: Is 'In-Trial' Guidance Lacking? A Systematic Review

Derek G Kyte et al. PLoS One.

Abstract

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Definitive coding frame.
Major categories in bold.
Figure 2
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 13 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Calvert M, Freemantle N (2004) Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 2: methodological considerations for the assessment of health-related quality of life in clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 29: 85–94. - PubMed
    1. Lemieuz J, Goodwin PJ, Bordeleau LJ, Lauzier S, Theberge V (2011) Quality-of-life measurement in randomized clinical trials in breast cancer: An updated systematic review (2001–2009). Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103: 178–231. - PubMed
    1. Sajid MS, Tonsi A, Baig MK (2008) Health-related quality of life measurement. International Journal of Health Care 21: 365–373. - PubMed
    1. Calvert MJ, Freemantle N (2003) Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 1: why evaluate health-related quality of life? Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 28: 513–521. - PubMed
    1. Fayers P (1995) MRC quality of life studies using a daily diary card--practical lessons learned from cancer trials. [Review] [42 refs]. Quality of Life Research 4: 343–352. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Feedback