Cargando…

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McKigney, Niamh, Houston, Fergus, Ross, Ellen, Velikova, Galina, Brown, Julia, Harji, Deena Pravin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37071237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13388-5
_version_ 1785055719625588736
author McKigney, Niamh
Houston, Fergus
Ross, Ellen
Velikova, Galina
Brown, Julia
Harji, Deena Pravin
author_facet McKigney, Niamh
Houston, Fergus
Ross, Ellen
Velikova, Galina
Brown, Julia
Harji, Deena Pravin
author_sort McKigney, Niamh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14(th) September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC. CONCLUSIONS: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-023-13388-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10250265
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102502652023-06-10 Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer McKigney, Niamh Houston, Fergus Ross, Ellen Velikova, Galina Brown, Julia Harji, Deena Pravin Ann Surg Oncol Colorectal Cancer BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14(th) September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC. CONCLUSIONS: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-023-13388-5. Springer International Publishing 2023-04-18 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10250265/ /pubmed/37071237 http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13388-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Colorectal Cancer
McKigney, Niamh
Houston, Fergus
Ross, Ellen
Velikova, Galina
Brown, Julia
Harji, Deena Pravin
Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title_full Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title_fullStr Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title_short Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer
title_sort systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in locally recurrent rectal cancer
topic Colorectal Cancer
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250265/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37071237
http://dx.doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13388-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mckigneyniamh systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer
AT houstonfergus systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer
AT rossellen systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer
AT velikovagalina systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer
AT brownjulia systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer
AT harjideenapravin systematicreviewofpatientreportedoutcomemeasuresinlocallyrecurrentrectalcancer