Cargando…

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Johnston, Bradley C, Patrick, Donald L, Busse, Jason W, Schünemann, Holger J, Agarwal, Arnav, Guyatt, Gordon H
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23815754
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-109
_version_ 1782276654883667968
author Johnston, Bradley C
Patrick, Donald L
Busse, Jason W
Schünemann, Holger J
Agarwal, Arnav
Guyatt, Gordon H
author_facet Johnston, Bradley C
Patrick, Donald L
Busse, Jason W
Schünemann, Holger J
Agarwal, Arnav
Guyatt, Gordon H
author_sort Johnston, Bradley C
collection PubMed
description Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness. The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes. We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients’ quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3708764
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37087642013-07-12 Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes Johnston, Bradley C Patrick, Donald L Busse, Jason W Schünemann, Holger J Agarwal, Arnav Guyatt, Gordon H Health Qual Life Outcomes Review Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness. The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes. We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients’ quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results. BioMed Central 2013-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3708764/ /pubmed/23815754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-109 Text en Copyright © 2013 Johnston et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Johnston, Bradley C
Patrick, Donald L
Busse, Jason W
Schünemann, Holger J
Agarwal, Arnav
Guyatt, Gordon H
Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title_full Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title_fullStr Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title_short Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
title_sort patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3708764/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23815754
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-109
work_keys_str_mv AT johnstonbradleyc patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes
AT patrickdonaldl patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes
AT bussejasonw patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes
AT schunemannholgerj patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes
AT agarwalarnav patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes
AT guyattgordonh patientreportedoutcomesinmetaanalysespart1assessingriskofbiasandcombiningoutcomes