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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |