Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting according to the CONSORT statement in randomized controlled trials with glioblastoma patients.
CONSORT-PRO statement
glioblastoma
health-related quality of life
patient-reported outcomes
randomized controlled trials
Journal
Neuro-oncology practice
ISSN: 2054-2577
Titre abrégé: Neurooncol Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101640528
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez:
26
4
2021
pubmed:
27
4
2021
medline:
27
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated. From PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified. Forty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods. Despite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the best evidence in oncology research. Glioblastoma is the most frequent and deadly primary brain tumor, affecting health-related quality of life. An important end point is patient-reported outcomes (PROs). There are no data regarding how well publications of glioblastoma RCTs report PROs. A specific PRO extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was created to improve the quality of reporting. The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to the CONSORT-PRO statement in reporting RCTs addressing the treatment of patients with glioblastoma. PRO analysis methodology was explored and criteria associated with higher quality of reporting were investigated.
METHODS
METHODS
From PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases, all phase 2 and 3 RCTs related to glioblastoma published between 1995 and 2018 were reviewed according to the CONSORT-PRO statements. An overall quality score on a 0 to 100 scale was defined based on these criteria and factors associated with this score were identified.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty-four RCTs were identified as relevant according to predefined criteria. The median overall quality score was 26. No difference was observed regarding reporting quality over the years. CONSORT-PRO items concerning data collection and analysis were poorly reported. Thirty-four trials (77%) used longitudinal data. The most frequent statistical method for PROs analysis was the mean change from baseline (63%). Factors associated with improved overall quality score were the presence of a secondary publication dedicated to PROs results, the statement of any targeted dimensions, and when trials reported results using multiple methods.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the importance of measuring PROs in patients with glioblastoma, employment of the CONSORT-PRO statement is poor in RCTs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33898048
doi: 10.1093/nop/npaa074
pii: npaa074
pmc: PMC8049443
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
148-159Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the European Association of Neuro-Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 29;1:60
pubmed: 23194585
J Clin Oncol. 1998 Jan;16(1):139-44
pubmed: 9440735
Qual Life Res. 2011 Jun;20(5):653-64
pubmed: 21110123
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jan;26(1):231-237
pubmed: 25355720
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Jul 3;104(13):982-9
pubmed: 22761273
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1996;(20):7-9
pubmed: 8750460
Lancet Oncol. 2009 May;10(5):459-66
pubmed: 19269895
J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 1;24(7):1136-44
pubmed: 16505433
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jun 22;342(25):1887-92
pubmed: 10861325
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Dec 31;12:192
pubmed: 25551580
Qual Life Res. 2017 Jun;26(6):1427-1437
pubmed: 28168602
Semin Oncol. 2014 Aug;41(4):541-552
pubmed: 25173146
N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 11;362(10):865-9
pubmed: 20220181
J Neurooncol. 2015 Sep;124(3):345-56
pubmed: 26297044
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Jul;116:190-198
pubmed: 31203194
Bull Cancer. 2015 Apr;102(4):360-6
pubmed: 25799875
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Chin J Cancer. 2014 Jan;33(1):40-5
pubmed: 24384239
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Feb;21(2):e83-e96
pubmed: 32007209
J Neurosurg. 2016 Apr;124(4):989-97
pubmed: 26430849
Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009 Aug;18(8):1061-83
pubmed: 19555299
Neuro Oncol. 2017 Nov 6;19(suppl_5):v1-v88
pubmed: 29117289
Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
pubmed: 2691207
Cancer Med. 2016 Aug;5(8):1753-64
pubmed: 27252150
J Visc Surg. 2014 Feb;151(1):17-22
pubmed: 24440056
Milbank Q. 2014 Dec;92(4):754-75
pubmed: 25492603
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869
pubmed: 20332511
BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 18;16:122
pubmed: 26892541
Br J Cancer. 2007 Aug 6;97(3):302-7
pubmed: 17609661
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jun;18(6):e315-e329
pubmed: 28483413
J Cancer Surviv. 2017 Aug;11(4):447-452
pubmed: 28194640
Stat Med. 1998 Mar 15-Apr 15;17(5-7):561-9
pubmed: 9549805
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 May 3;98(9):620-5
pubmed: 16670387
JAMA. 1996 Aug 28;276(8):637-9
pubmed: 8773637
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18
pubmed: 25589231
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Sep;50(14):2432-48
pubmed: 25034656
Cancer Manag Res. 2014 Sep 26;6:373-87
pubmed: 25298738
Neurology. 2006 Jan 24;66(2):239-42
pubmed: 16434662
Oncologist. 2018 Mar;23(3):337-345
pubmed: 29133516
JAMA. 2017 Dec 19;318(23):2306-2316
pubmed: 29260225
Cancer. 2015 Sep 15;121(18):3335-42
pubmed: 26079197
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22
pubmed: 23443445
Stat Med. 1998 Mar 15-Apr 15;17(5-7):517-32
pubmed: 9549801
Acta Neuropathol. 2016 Jun;131(6):803-20
pubmed: 27157931
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):834-40
pubmed: 20346629
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Mar;19(3):e173-e180
pubmed: 29508764
J Neurosci Rural Pract. 2017 Apr-Jun;8(2):228-235
pubmed: 28479798
Qual Life Res. 2015 Jan;24(1):5-18
pubmed: 24277234
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):987-96
pubmed: 15758009
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 20;29(9):1204-9
pubmed: 21321290
ESMO Open. 2019 Jun 17;4(Suppl 2):e000520
pubmed: 31297242