Cargando…

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deliu, Nina, Cottone, Francesco, Collins, Gary S, Anota, Amélie, Efficace, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6224737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30361409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025054
_version_ 1783369654022963200
author Deliu, Nina
Cottone, Francesco
Collins, Gary S
Anota, Amélie
Efficace, Fabio
author_facet Deliu, Nina
Cottone, Francesco
Collins, Gary S
Anota, Amélie
Efficace, Fabio
author_sort Deliu, Nina
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099160.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6224737
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62247372018-11-23 Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol Deliu, Nina Cottone, Francesco Collins, Gary S Anota, Amélie Efficace, Fabio BMJ Open Research Methods INTRODUCTION: While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018099160. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-10-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6224737/ /pubmed/30361409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025054 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research Methods
Deliu, Nina
Cottone, Francesco
Collins, Gary S
Anota, Amélie
Efficace, Fabio
Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title_full Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title_fullStr Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title_short Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol
title_sort evaluating methodological quality of prognostic models including patient-reported health outcomes in oncology (epiphany): a systematic review protocol
topic Research Methods
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6224737/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30361409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025054
work_keys_str_mv AT deliunina evaluatingmethodologicalqualityofprognosticmodelsincludingpatientreportedhealthoutcomesinoncologyepiphanyasystematicreviewprotocol
AT cottonefrancesco evaluatingmethodologicalqualityofprognosticmodelsincludingpatientreportedhealthoutcomesinoncologyepiphanyasystematicreviewprotocol
AT collinsgarys evaluatingmethodologicalqualityofprognosticmodelsincludingpatientreportedhealthoutcomesinoncologyepiphanyasystematicreviewprotocol
AT anotaamelie evaluatingmethodologicalqualityofprognosticmodelsincludingpatientreportedhealthoutcomesinoncologyepiphanyasystematicreviewprotocol
AT efficacefabio evaluatingmethodologicalqualityofprognosticmodelsincludingpatientreportedhealthoutcomesinoncologyepiphanyasystematicreviewprotocol