Display options
Cite
Ahmed K, Kyte D, Keeley T, et al. Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e012863doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863.
Ahmed, K., Kyte, D., Keeley, T., Efficace, F., Armes, J., Brown, J. M., Calman, L., Copland, C., Gavin, A., Glaser, A., Greenfield, D. M., Lanceley, A., Taylor, R., Velikova, G., Brundage, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., & Calvert, M. (2016). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol. BMJ open, 6(9), e012863. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863
Ahmed, Khaled, et al. "Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol." BMJ open vol. 6,9 (2016): e012863. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863
Ahmed K, Kyte D, Keeley T, Efficace F, Armes J, Brown JM, Calman L, Copland C, Gavin A, Glaser A, Greenfield DM, Lanceley A, Taylor R, Velikova G, Brundage M, Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert M. Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol. BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 21;6(9):e012863. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863. PMID: 27655263; PMCID: PMC5051436.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMJ Open. 2016 Sep 21;6(9):e012863. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863.

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

BMJ open

Khaled Ahmed, Derek Kyte, Thomas Keeley, Fabio Efficace, Jo Armes, Julia M Brown, Lynn Calman, Chris Copland, Anna Gavin, Adam Glaser, Diana M Greenfield, Anne Lanceley, Rachel Taylor, Galina Velikova, Michael Brundage, Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Madeleine T King, Melanie Calvert

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
  2. Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
  3. King's College London, London, UK.
  4. UKCRC Registered CTU Network, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  5. Department of Heath Sciences, University of Southhampton, Southampton, UK.
  6. NCRI Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship CSG Consumer member, York, UK.
  7. Queen's University Belfast, Centre for Public Health, Belfast, UK.
  8. Leeds Institute of Cancer & Pathology, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  9. Sheffield Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
  10. University College London, UCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, London, UK.
  11. University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, UK.
  12. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  13. Queen's Department of Oncology School of Medicine, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
  14. Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Faculties of Science and Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  15. Faculties of Science and Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

PMID: 27655263 PMCID: PMC5051436 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012863

Abstract

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.

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/

Keywords: CONSORT PRO; Cancer trials; Evaluation; PROs; Quality of life; SPIRIT Checklist

References

  1. BMJ. 2013 Jan 08;346:e7586 - PubMed
  2. Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65 - PubMed
  3. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7 - PubMed
  4. Qual Life Res. 2011 Jun;20(5):653-64 - PubMed
  5. BMJ. 2011 Jan 06;342:c7153 - PubMed
  6. Psychosom Med. 2004 May-Jun;66(3):411-21 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2001 May 26;322(7297):1297-300 - PubMed
  8. N Engl J Med. 2013 Aug 1;369(5):397-400 - PubMed
  9. Qual Life Res. 2013 Aug;22(6):1161-75 - PubMed
  10. Cancer. 2015 Sep 15;121(18):3335-42 - PubMed
  11. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 04;8(10):e76625 - PubMed
  12. Med Care. 2012 Dec;50(12):1060-70 - PubMed
  13. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jan;15(1):78-86 - PubMed
  14. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003 Jan-Feb;30(1):107-14 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jul 1;24(19):3178-86 - PubMed
  16. PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 24;7(3):e1000251 - PubMed
  17. J R Soc Med. 2015 Aug;108(8):299-303 - PubMed
  18. BMJ. 2010 Jan 18;340:c186 - PubMed
  19. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Apr;10(2):119-28 - PubMed
  20. Lancet Oncol. 2014 Jul;15(8):894-904 - PubMed
  21. JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22 - PubMed
  22. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Mar;114(3):460-8 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e110229 - PubMed
  24. Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1966-73 - PubMed
  25. Support Care Cancer. 2010 Jan;18(1):121-30 - PubMed
  26. Qual Life Res. 2003 Jun;12(4):395-404 - PubMed

Publication Types