The Reporting Completeness of Patient‐Reported Outcome in Randomized Controlled Trials of Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer Could Be Improved: A Systematic Review.
Saved in:
| Title: | The Reporting Completeness of Patient‐Reported Outcome in Randomized Controlled Trials of Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer Could Be Improved: A Systematic Review. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | He, Wenbo (AUTHOR), Jing, Fangyuan (AUTHOR), Gao, Yinyan (AUTHOR), Yi, Hang (AUTHOR), Li, Meixuan (AUTHOR), You, Jiuhong (AUTHOR), Shen, Yanjiao (AUTHOR), Wu, Yi (AUTHOR), Kang, Pan (AUTHOR), Yu, Zhiruo (AUTHOR), Wang, Xinyi (AUTHOR), Luo, Yunmei (AUTHOR), Li, Zhengchi (AUTHOR), Du, Liang (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Psycho-Oncology. Apr2025, Vol. 34 Issue 4, p1-12. 12p. |
| Subjects: | Patient reported outcome measures, Non-small-cell lung carcinoma, Randomized controlled trials, Health outcome assessment, Data integrity, Medical practice, Immunotherapy |
| Abstract: | Background: Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a highly symptomatic with a rapidly increasing incidence. The treatment options are for most patients limited to adjuvant immunotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly becoming an essential component in evaluating healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Purpose: We aimed to assess differences in the use of PROs measurement tools and their reporting quality in NSCLC randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched for reports of PROs in NSCLC RCT studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus before June 6, 2024. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using criteria recommended by the International Society for Quality‐of‐Life Research. Multivariate linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between report quality and influencing factors. Results: A total of 252 RCTs were included in the analysis, with 23% of these studies reporting PROs as primary endpoints. Overall, studies with PROs as primary endpoints demonstrated higher adherence to the reporting checklist (76%). The results of multivariate linear regression indicated a significant improvement in PRO reporting quality over time (β = 5.35, 95% CI [1.05, 9.64], p < 0.05). However, substantial shortcomings were identified in PRO reporting, including incomplete reporting of missing data and a lack of details on PRO data management modes (e.g., telephone, computer, etc.). Conclusion: The deficiencies observed in PRO reporting underscore the need for improved design and implementation of PRO endpoints in future NSCLC trials. Enhancing the quality of PRO reporting could improve the relevance and applicability of research findings to clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Psycho-Oncology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains a highly symptomatic with a rapidly increasing incidence. The treatment options are for most patients limited to adjuvant immunotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly becoming an essential component in evaluating healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Purpose: We aimed to assess differences in the use of PROs measurement tools and their reporting quality in NSCLC randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched for reports of PROs in NSCLC RCT studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus before June 6, 2024. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using criteria recommended by the International Society for Quality‐of‐Life Research. Multivariate linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between report quality and influencing factors. Results: A total of 252 RCTs were included in the analysis, with 23% of these studies reporting PROs as primary endpoints. Overall, studies with PROs as primary endpoints demonstrated higher adherence to the reporting checklist (76%). The results of multivariate linear regression indicated a significant improvement in PRO reporting quality over time (β = 5.35, 95% CI [1.05, 9.64], p < 0.05). However, substantial shortcomings were identified in PRO reporting, including incomplete reporting of missing data and a lack of details on PRO data management modes (e.g., telephone, computer, etc.). Conclusion: The deficiencies observed in PRO reporting underscore the need for improved design and implementation of PRO endpoints in future NSCLC trials. Enhancing the quality of PRO reporting could improve the relevance and applicability of research findings to clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10579249 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/pon.70152 |
