Cargando…

Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review

PURPOSE: Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs publishe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen, Rohde, Gudrun, Rimehaug, Stein Arne, Andersen, Marit Helen, Bernklev, Tomm, Bjordal, Kristin, Falk, Ragnhild Sørum, Jørgensen, Nina Marie Høyning, Stavem, Knut, Tollisen, Anita, Amdal, Cecilie Delphin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34350566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7
_version_ 1784669256323956736
author Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen
Rohde, Gudrun
Rimehaug, Stein Arne
Andersen, Marit Helen
Bernklev, Tomm
Bjordal, Kristin
Falk, Ragnhild Sørum
Jørgensen, Nina Marie Høyning
Stavem, Knut
Tollisen, Anita
Amdal, Cecilie Delphin
author_facet Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen
Rohde, Gudrun
Rimehaug, Stein Arne
Andersen, Marit Helen
Bernklev, Tomm
Bjordal, Kristin
Falk, Ragnhild Sørum
Jørgensen, Nina Marie Høyning
Stavem, Knut
Tollisen, Anita
Amdal, Cecilie Delphin
author_sort Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs published in 2008 and 2018. Secondarily, to describe the study designs, PRO instruments used, patient groups studied, and countries where the clinical studies were conducted. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify eligible publications. To assess the number of publications, all abstracts were screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers. Compliance with PRO-specific criteria and other key characteristics was assessed in a random sample of 150 eligible full-text publications from each year. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed according to the full CONSORT-PRO checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 1692 publications in 2008 and 4290 in 2018. After screening of abstracts, 1240 from 2008 and 2869 from 2018 were clinical studies using PROs. By full-text review, the proportion of studies discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there were no differences in the other selected PRO-specific criteria. In 2018, a higher proportion of studies were longitudinal/cohort studies, included ≥ 300 patients, and used electronic administration of PRO than in 2008. The most common patient groups studied were those with cancer or diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue. CONCLUSION: The number of clinical studies from Europe using PROs was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there was little difference in compliance with the PRO-specific criteria. The studies varied in terms of study design and PRO instruments used in both publication years. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8921066
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89210662022-03-17 Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen Rohde, Gudrun Rimehaug, Stein Arne Andersen, Marit Helen Bernklev, Tomm Bjordal, Kristin Falk, Ragnhild Sørum Jørgensen, Nina Marie Høyning Stavem, Knut Tollisen, Anita Amdal, Cecilie Delphin Qual Life Res Review PURPOSE: Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs published in 2008 and 2018. Secondarily, to describe the study designs, PRO instruments used, patient groups studied, and countries where the clinical studies were conducted. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify eligible publications. To assess the number of publications, all abstracts were screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers. Compliance with PRO-specific criteria and other key characteristics was assessed in a random sample of 150 eligible full-text publications from each year. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed according to the full CONSORT-PRO checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 1692 publications in 2008 and 4290 in 2018. After screening of abstracts, 1240 from 2008 and 2869 from 2018 were clinical studies using PROs. By full-text review, the proportion of studies discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there were no differences in the other selected PRO-specific criteria. In 2018, a higher proportion of studies were longitudinal/cohort studies, included ≥ 300 patients, and used electronic administration of PRO than in 2008. The most common patient groups studied were those with cancer or diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue. CONCLUSION: The number of clinical studies from Europe using PROs was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there was little difference in compliance with the PRO-specific criteria. The studies varied in terms of study design and PRO instruments used in both publication years. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7. Springer International Publishing 2021-08-04 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8921066/ /pubmed/34350566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 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 Review
Astrup, Guro Lindviksmoen
Rohde, Gudrun
Rimehaug, Stein Arne
Andersen, Marit Helen
Bernklev, Tomm
Bjordal, Kristin
Falk, Ragnhild Sørum
Jørgensen, Nina Marie Høyning
Stavem, Knut
Tollisen, Anita
Amdal, Cecilie Delphin
Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title_full Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title_fullStr Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title_short Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
title_sort comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8921066/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34350566
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7
work_keys_str_mv AT astrupgurolindviksmoen comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT rohdegudrun comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT rimehaugsteinarne comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT andersenmarithelen comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT bernklevtomm comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT bjordalkristin comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT falkragnhildsørum comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT jørgensenninamariehøyning comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT stavemknut comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT tollisenanita comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT amdalceciliedelphin comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview
AT comparingtheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinclinicalstudiesineuropein2008and2018aliteraturereview