Dataset Information

Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Following a diagnosis of cancer, the detailed assessment of prognostic stage by radiology is a crucial determinant of initial therapeutic strategy offered to patients. Pretherapeutic stage by imaging is known to be inconsistently documented. We tested whether the completeness of cancer staging radiology reports could be improved through a nationally introduced pilot of proforma-based reporting for a selection of six common cancers.

Design

Prospective interventional study comparing the completeness of radiology cancer staging reports before and after the introduction of proforma reporting.

Setting

Twenty-one UK National Health Service hospitals.

Participants

1283 cancer staging radiology reports were submitted.

Main outcome measures

Radiology staging reports across the six cancers types were evaluated before and after the implementation of proforma-based reporting. Report completeness was assessed using scoring forms listing the presence or absence of predetermined key staging data. Qualitative data regarding proforma implementation and usefulness were collected from questionnaires provided to radiologists and end-users.

Results

Electronic proforma-based reporting was successfully implemented in 15 of the 21 centres during the evaluation period. A total of 787 preproforma and 496 postproforma staging reports were evaluated. In the preproforma group, only 48.7% (5586/11 470) of key staging items were present compared with 87.3% (6043/6920) in the postproforma group. Thus, the introduction of proforma reporting produced a 78% improvement in staging completeness . This increase was seen across all cancer types and centres. The majority of participants found proforma reporting improved cancer reporting quality for their clinical practice .

Conclusion

The implementation of proforma reporting results in a significant improvement in the completeness of cancer staging reports. Proforma-based assessment of cancer stage enables objective comparisons of patient outcomes across centres. It should therefore become an auditable quality standard for cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Patel A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6169672 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

Patel Anisha A Rockall Andrea A Guthrie Ashley A Gleeson Fergus F Worthy Sylvia S Grubnic Sisa S Burling David D Allen Clare C Padhani Anwar A Carey Brendan B Cavanagh Peter P Peake Michael D MD Brown Gina G

BMJ open 20181002 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>Following a diagnosis of cancer, the detailed assessment of prognostic stage by radiology is a crucial determinant of initial therapeutic strategy offered to patients. Pretherapeutic stage by imaging is known to be inconsistently documented. We tested whether the completeness of cancer staging radiology reports could be improved through a nationally introduced pilot of proforma-based reporting for a selection of six common cancers.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective interventional stud ...[more]

PMID: 30282676

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments. Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported." For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall. We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes. The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesReporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.Study selectionEnglish language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).Data extractionPotentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.Results101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.Systematic review registrationNot registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Exercise is an effective therapeutic intervention for cancer survivors. Concerns about the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions have been raised in the literature, but without any formal analysis. This study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of exercise interventions for cancer survivors in a large sample of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS:We developed a pre-defined protocol. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for exercise trials in oncology between 2010 and 2017. Pairs of independent researchers screened the records, extracted study characteristics, and assessed 16 items on the TIDieR checklist (i.e., the 12 items, with item 5 divided into two and item 8 divided into four). For each of these items, the percentage of interventions in the included studies that reported the item was calculated. RESULTS:We included 131 RCTs reporting 138 interventions in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common type of cancer (69, 50%), and aerobic exercise was the most studied exercise modality (43, 30%) followed by combined aerobic and resistance training (40, 28%). Completeness of reporting ranged from 42 to 96% among the TIDieR items; none of the items was fully reported. 'Intervention length' was the most reported item across interventions (133, 96%), followed by 'rationale' (131, 95%), whereas 'provider' (58, 42%) and 'how well (planned)' (63, 46%) were the two least reported items. Half of the TIDieR items were completely reported in 50 to 70% of the interventions, and only four items were reported in more than 80% of the interventions (Items 2 and 8a to c). The seven items deemed to be core for replication (Items 3 to 9) exhibited a mean reporting of 71%, ranging from 42 to 96%. CONCLUSION:Exercise training interventions for cancer survivors are incompletely reported across RCTs published between 2010 and 2017. The reporting of information about the provider, materials, and modifications require urgent improvements. Stronger reporting will enhance usability of trial reports by both healthcare providers and survivors, and will help to reduce research waste.

Dataset Information

Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Can the completeness of radiological cancer staging reports be improved using proforma reporting? A prospective multicentre non-blinded interventional study across 21 centres in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets