Cargando…

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK ca...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ahmed, Khaled, Kyte, Derek, Keeley, Thomas, Efficace, Fabio, Armes, Jo, Brown, Julia M, Calman, Lynn, Copland, Chris, Gavin, Anna, Glaser, Adam, Greenfield, Diana M, Lanceley, Anne, Taylor, Rachel, Velikova, Galina, Brundage, Michael, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, King, Madeleine T, Calvert, Melanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27655263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863
_version_ 1782458077906206720
author Ahmed, Khaled
Kyte, Derek
Keeley, Thomas
Efficace, Fabio
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
author_facet Ahmed, Khaled
Kyte, Derek
Keeley, Thomas
Efficace, Fabio
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
author_sort Ahmed, Khaled
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016036533.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5051436
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50514362016-10-17 Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol Ahmed, Khaled Kyte, Derek Keeley, Thomas Efficace, Fabio Armes, Jo Brown, Julia M Calman, Lynn Copland, Chris Gavin, Anna Glaser, Adam Greenfield, Diana M Lanceley, Anne Taylor, Rachel Velikova, Galina Brundage, Michael Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca King, Madeleine T Calvert, Melanie BMJ Open Patient-Centred Medicine INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016036533. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5051436/ /pubmed/27655263 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Patient-Centred Medicine
Ahmed, Khaled
Kyte, Derek
Keeley, Thomas
Efficace, Fabio
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Copland, Chris
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Calvert, Melanie
Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title_full Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title_fullStr Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title_short Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol
title_sort systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (pro) protocol content and reporting in uk cancer clinical trials: the epic study protocol
topic Patient-Centred Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5051436/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27655263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863
work_keys_str_mv AT ahmedkhaled systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT kytederek systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT keeleythomas systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT efficacefabio systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT armesjo systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT brownjuliam systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT calmanlynn systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT coplandchris systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT gavinanna systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT glaseradam systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT greenfielddianam systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT lanceleyanne systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT taylorrachel systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT velikovagalina systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT brundagemichael systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT merciecabebberrebecca systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT kingmadeleinet systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol
AT calvertmelanie systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeproprotocolcontentandreportinginukcancerclinicaltrialstheepicstudyprotocol