Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Quality of Life Research 3/2022

Open Access 01-03-2022 | Review

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

Authors: Guro Lindviksmoen Astrup, Gudrun Rohde, Stein Arne Rimehaug, Marit Helen Andersen, Tomm Bernklev, Kristin Bjordal, Ragnhild Sørum Falk, Nina Marie Høyning Jørgensen, Knut Stavem, Anita Tollisen, Cecilie Delphin Amdal, on behalf of PROMiNET

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 3/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.CrossRef Patrick, D. L., Burke, L. B., Powers, J. H., Scott, J. A., Rock, E. P., Dawisha, S., et al. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S125–S137.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S94–S105.CrossRef Frost, M. H., Reeve, B. B., Liepa, A. M., Stauffer, J. W., & Hays, R. D. (2007). What is sufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures? Value Health, 10(Suppl 2), S94–S105.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRef Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Bonnetain, F., Calvert, M., et al. (2016). Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: A start in setting international standards. The Lancet Oncology, 17(11), e510–e514.CrossRef Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., Basch, E., Bonnetain, F., Calvert, M., et al. (2016). Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: A start in setting international standards. The Lancet Oncology, 17(11), e510–e514.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.CrossRef Calvert, M., Blazeby, J., Altman, D. G., Revicki, D. A., Moher, D., & Brundage, M. D. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.CrossRef Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Slade, A., Chan, A. W., King, M. T., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration.
8.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., et al. (2017). Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1427–1437.CrossRef Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., et al. (2017). Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1427–1437.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Claassens, L., van Meerbeeck, J., Coens, C., Quinten, C., Ghislain, I., Sloan, E. K., et al. (2011). Health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer: An update of a systematic review on methodologic issues in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(15), 2104–2120.CrossRef Claassens, L., van Meerbeeck, J., Coens, C., Quinten, C., Ghislain, I., Sloan, E. K., et al. (2011). Health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer: An update of a systematic review on methodologic issues in randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(15), 2104–2120.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Shrestha, A., Martin, C., Burton, M., Walters, S., Collins, K., & Wyld, L. (2019). Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review. Psycho-Oncology, 28(7), 1367–1380.CrossRef Shrestha, A., Martin, C., Burton, M., Walters, S., Collins, K., & Wyld, L. (2019). Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review. Psycho-Oncology, 28(7), 1367–1380.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vodicka, E., Kim, K., Devine, E. B., Gnanasakthy, A., Scoggins, J. F., & Patrick, D. L. (2015). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 1–9.CrossRef Vodicka, E., Kim, K., Devine, E. B., Gnanasakthy, A., Scoggins, J. F., & Patrick, D. L. (2015). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 1–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber, R., Williams, D., Tait, M. A., Roydhouse, J., Busija, L., Sundaram, C. S., et al. (2018). Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Quality of Life Research, 27(10), 2581–2591.CrossRef Mercieca-Bebber, R., Williams, D., Tait, M. A., Roydhouse, J., Busija, L., Sundaram, C. S., et al. (2018). Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). Quality of Life Research, 27(10), 2581–2591.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Bottomley, A., Vanvoorden, V., & Blazeby, J. M. (2004). Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Cancer, 40(2), 187–197.CrossRef Efficace, F., Bottomley, A., Vanvoorden, V., & Blazeby, J. M. (2004). Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trials. European Journal of Cancer, 40(2), 187–197.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., Cafaro, V., Eastham, J., Pusic, A., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: Methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 66(3), 416–427.CrossRef Efficace, F., Feuerstein, M., Fayers, P., Cafaro, V., Eastham, J., Pusic, A., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: Methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. European Urology, 66(3), 416–427.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941.CrossRef Efficace, F., Jacobs, M., Pusic, A., Greimel, E., Piciocchi, A., Kieffer, J. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: Investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making. European Journal of Cancer, 50(11), 1925–1941.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18(12), 1935–1942.CrossRef Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18(12), 1935–1942.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Efficace, F., Fayers, P., Pusic, A., Cemal, Y., Yanagawa, J., Jacobs, M., et al. (2015). Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials. Cancer, 121(18), 3335–3342.CrossRef Efficace, F., Fayers, P., Pusic, A., Cemal, Y., Yanagawa, J., Jacobs, M., et al. (2015). Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials. Cancer, 121(18), 3335–3342.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gilbert, A., Ziegler, L., Martland, M., Davidson, S., Efficace, F., Sebag-Montefiore, D., et al. (2015). Systematic review of radiation therapy toxicity reporting in randomized controlled trials of rectal cancer: A comparison of patient-reported outcomes and clinician toxicity reporting. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 92(3), 555–567.CrossRef Gilbert, A., Ziegler, L., Martland, M., Davidson, S., Efficace, F., Sebag-Montefiore, D., et al. (2015). Systematic review of radiation therapy toxicity reporting in randomized controlled trials of rectal cancer: A comparison of patient-reported outcomes and clinician toxicity reporting. International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, 92(3), 555–567.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Bylicki, O., Gan, H. K., Joly, F., Maillet, D., You, B., & Peron, J. (2015). Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Annals of Oncology, 26(1), 231–237.CrossRef Bylicki, O., Gan, H. K., Joly, F., Maillet, D., You, B., & Peron, J. (2015). Poor patient-reported outcomes reporting according to CONSORT guidelines in randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic cancer therapy. Annals of Oncology, 26(1), 231–237.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Weingartner, V., Dargatz, N., Weber, C., Mueller, D., Stock, S., Voltz, R., et al. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: A structured literature review. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 9(6), 821–829.CrossRef Weingartner, V., Dargatz, N., Weber, C., Mueller, D., Stock, S., Voltz, R., et al. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in randomized controlled cancer trials in advanced disease: A structured literature review. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 9(6), 821–829.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Catt, S., Starkings, R., Shilling, V., & Fallowfield, L. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures of the impact of cancer on patients’ everyday lives: A systematic review. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 11(2), 211–232.CrossRef Catt, S., Starkings, R., Shilling, V., & Fallowfield, L. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures of the impact of cancer on patients’ everyday lives: A systematic review. Journal of Cancer Survivorship, 11(2), 211–232.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210.CrossRef Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.CrossRef Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012.CrossRef Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1006–1012.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Golsteijn, R. H. J., Bolman, C., Volders, E., Peels, D. A., de Vries, H., & Lechner, L. (2018). Short-term efficacy of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention for prostate and colorectal cancer patients and survivors: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 15(1), 106.CrossRef Golsteijn, R. H. J., Bolman, C., Volders, E., Peels, D. A., de Vries, H., & Lechner, L. (2018). Short-term efficacy of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention for prostate and colorectal cancer patients and survivors: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 15(1), 106.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Aga, C., Risberg, M. A., Fagerland, M. W., Johansen, S., Troan, I., Heir, S., et al. (2018). No difference in the KOOS quality of life subscore between anatomic double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee: A prospective randomized controlled trial with 2 years’ follow-up. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(10), 2341–2354.CrossRef Aga, C., Risberg, M. A., Fagerland, M. W., Johansen, S., Troan, I., Heir, S., et al. (2018). No difference in the KOOS quality of life subscore between anatomic double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction of the knee: A prospective randomized controlled trial with 2 years’ follow-up. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 46(10), 2341–2354.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Case, L. D., & Ambrosius, W. T. (2007). Power and sample size. Methods in Molecular Biology, 404, 377–408.CrossRef Case, L. D., & Ambrosius, W. T. (2007). Power and sample size. Methods in Molecular Biology, 404, 377–408.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Chang, E. M., Gillespie, E. F., & Shaverdian, N. (2019). Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: Factors affecting patients’ responses and impact on data quality. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 10, 171–186.CrossRef Chang, E. M., Gillespie, E. F., & Shaverdian, N. (2019). Truthfulness in patient-reported outcomes: Factors affecting patients’ responses and impact on data quality. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 10, 171–186.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 559–574.CrossRef Rutherford, C., Costa, D., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rice, H., Gabb, L., & King, M. (2016). Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 25(3), 559–574.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Rowen, D., Carlton, J., & Elliott, J. (2019). PROM validation using paper-based or online surveys: Data collection methods affect the sociodemographic and health profile of the sample. Value Health, 22(8), 845–850.CrossRef Rowen, D., Carlton, J., & Elliott, J. (2019). PROM validation using paper-based or online surveys: Data collection methods affect the sociodemographic and health profile of the sample. Value Health, 22(8), 845–850.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review
Authors
Guro Lindviksmoen Astrup
Gudrun Rohde
Stein Arne Rimehaug
Marit Helen Andersen
Tomm Bernklev
Kristin Bjordal
Ragnhild Sørum Falk
Nina Marie Høyning Jørgensen
Knut Stavem
Anita Tollisen
Cecilie Delphin Amdal
on behalf of PROMiNET
Publication date
01-03-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02946-7

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

Quality of Life Research 3/2022 Go to the issue