Clinical research associates experience with missing patient reported outcomes data in cancer randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Missing patient reported outcomes data threaten the validity of PRO-specific findings and conclusions from randomized controlled trials by introducing bias due to data missing not at random. Clinical Research Associates are a largely unexplored source for informing understanding of potential causes of missing PRO data. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe factors that influence missing PRO data, as revealed through the lived experience of CRAs.Methods
Maximum variation sampling was used to select CRAs having a range of experiences with missing PRO data from academic or nonacademic centers in different geographic locations of Canada. Semistructured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to descriptive phenomenology.Results
Eleven CRAs were interviewed. Analysis revealed several factors that influence missing PRO data that were organized within themes. PROs for routine clinical care compete with PROs for RCTs. Both the paper and electronic formats have benefits and drawbacks. Missing PRO data are influenced by characteristics of the instruments and of the patients. Assessment of PROs at progression of disease is particularly difficult. Deficiencies in center research infrastructure can contribute. CRAs develop relationships with patients that may help reduce missing PRO data. It is not always possible to provide sufficient time to complete the instrument. There is a need for field guidance and a motivation among CRAs to contribute their knowledge to address issues.Conclusion
These results enhance understanding of factors influencing missing PRO data and have important implications for designing operational solutions to improve data quality on cancer RCTs.
SUBMITTER: Palmer MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8085912 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSymptoms are common among patients enrolled in phase I trials. We assessed the validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) items in relation to previously validated assessments of quality of life and psychological distress. We used data from a randomized trial testing a palliative care support intervention for patients enrolled on phase I trials.MethodsPatients (n?=?479) were accrued to the parent study prior to initiating a phase I clinical trial with data collected at baseline, 4, and 12?weeks. We determined the correlation of PRO-CTCAE with distress level, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) total, and subscale domain scores.ResultsPatients were predominantly female (56.8%) and older than age 60 years, and 30.7% were from minority populations. The correlation coefficient for distress level for all PRO-CTCAE items was small to moderate (Pearson r?=?0.33-0.46). Pearson correlation coefficient for FACT-G total was moderate (r = -0.45 to -0.69). Stronger associations were noted for mood items of the PRO-CTCAE only (with distress level, r?=?0.55-0.6; with FACT-G, r = -0.54 to -0.6). PRO-CTCAE symptom interference scores had the strongest correlation with distress level (Pearson r?=?0.46) and FACT-G total (Pearson r = -0.69). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE items and corresponding FACT-G (total and subscales) and distress levels reached statistical significance for all items (P <.001).ConclusionEvidence demonstrates validity of PRO-CTCAE in a heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment on phase I trials, with small to moderate correlations with distress level for all PRO-CTCAE items and moderate correlations with quality of life as measured by FACT-G total.
| S-EPMC7768928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of a person's health status that provide a global perspective of patient well-being. PROs can be classified into 4 primary domains: global, mental, physical, and social health. In this descriptive review, we focus on how PROs can be used in cardiac clinical trials, with an emphasis on cardiac surgical trials for patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure. We also highlight ongoing challenges and provide specific suggestions and novel opportunities to advance cardiac clinical trials. Current challenges include the long-term measurement of PROs in clinical trials beyond 1 year, inconsistency in the choice of the outcome measures among studies, and the lack of measurement of PROs across multiple domains. Opportunities for advancement include measuring PROs using consumer health informatics tools, including returning information back to participants in formats that they can understand using visualization. Future opportunities include quantifying cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences for PROs.
| S-EPMC8487900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) include questionnaires or surveys that ask patients for their perceptions about things like symptoms they are experiencing or quality of life. For incurable, morbid, life-shortening conditions like idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), PROs are particularly germane: They elucidate for clinicians and researchers what it is like for patients to live with such a disease, and they may detect important treatment effects not captured by other metrics (eg, pulmonary physiology). However, a relative paucity of research on PROs in IPF has left significant knowledge gaps in this area and contributed to the timidity investigators have about using PROs as prominent outcomes in IPF drug trials. Additional research on existing instruments is needed to establish or bolster their basic psychometric properties in IPF. When PROs are used as end points in therapeutic trials, analyzing PRO response data can be challenging, but these challenges can be overcome with a transparent, thoughtful, and sophisticated statistical approach. In this article, we discuss some of the basics of PRO assessment, existing knowledge gaps in IPF-related PRO research, and the potential usefulness of using PROs in IPF trials and conclude by offering specific recommendations for an approach to analyzing repeated-measures PRO data from IPF trials.
| S-EPMC3425334 | biostudies-other
Project description:To optimize the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical research, it is first necessary to review the current use of these outcomes in clinical trials to determine under what circumstances they are most useful, and to reveal current limitations.To investigate current patterns of use of PROs in clinical trials.We conducted a systematic literature review of all double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials using one or more PROs as a study outcome from 2004 to 2006. Data were abstracted and analyzed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression to characterize the use of PROs in clinical trials.The 180 clinical trials that met the study inclusion criteria used 173 unique instruments to measure a total of 466 PROs. Most PRO measurements were obtained using relatively few PRO instruments, with one-third of PRO instruments applied in more than 1 trial. In multivariable analysis, tests of statistical significance were more often reported for PROs used as primary trial outcomes. Statistically significant PRO outcomes (P<0.05) were more likely among disease-specific PROs compared with general PROs, PROs with a discussion of minimally important difference, and larger trials.PRO instruments may be improved through efforts to provide centralized electronic administration, cross-validation, and standardized interpretation of clinically relevant outcomes. The majority of PROs used in current clinical trials come from relatively few, commonly used disease-specific PRO instruments within major therapeutic areas.
| S-EPMC3682647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMissing data are common in alcohol clinical trials for both continuous and binary end points. Approaches to handle missing data have been explored for continuous outcomes, yet no studies have compared missing data approaches for binary outcomes (e.g., abstinence, no heavy drinking days). This study compares approaches to modeling binary outcomes with missing data in the COMBINE study.MethodsWe included participants in the COMBINE study who had complete drinking data during treatment and who were assigned to active medication or placebo conditions (N = 1,146). Using simulation methods, missing data were introduced under common scenarios with varying sample sizes and amounts of missing data. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of naltrexone (vs. placebo) in predicting any drinking and any heavy drinking outcomes at the end of treatment using 4 analytic approaches: complete case analysis (CCA), last observation carried forward (LOCF), the worst case scenario (WCS) of missing equals any drinking or heavy drinking, and multiple imputation (MI). In separate analyses, these approaches were compared when drinking data were manually deleted for those participants who discontinued treatment but continued to provide drinking data.ResultsWCS produced the greatest amount of bias in treatment effect estimates. MI usually yielded less biased estimates than WCS and CCA in the simulated data and performed considerably better than LOCF when estimating treatment effects among individuals who discontinued treatment.ConclusionsMissing data can introduce bias in treatment effect estimates in alcohol clinical trials. Researchers should utilize modern missing data methods, including MI, and avoid WCS and CCA when analyzing binary alcohol clinical trial outcomes.
| S-EPMC5522809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.349 RCTs (73?018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67?128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.
| S-EPMC6091903 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGiven the growing importance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as part of "big data" in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state-of-the-art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize the most recent high-quality PRO evidence-based knowledge from PCa RCTs and to examine whether quality of PRO reporting in PCa research improved over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, from April 2012 until February 2019. For benchmarking purposes, we also included RCTs identified in our previously published review of RCTs (2004-2012). Methodology for study identification and evaluation followed standardized criteria and a predefined data extraction form was used to abstract information. PRO quality of the studies was evaluated using the International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended criteria.ResultsA total of 55 new RCTs were published between April 2012 and February 2019. About 24 (43.6%) RCTs were found to be of high-quality regarding PRO assessments. Of these, 13 (54.2%) have been reported in the most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) PCa Guidelines. Overall QoL and sexual, urinary, and bowel function were the most commonly reported PROs. FACT-P, EPIC-26, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and/or its module PR25 were most frequently used as measurement tools. An overall improvement in the completeness of PRO reporting was noted over time.ConclusionMany PRO trials are currently not included in the EAU guidelines. Our findings suggest that there has to be a better consensus on the use of PRO data for PCa patients, which will then be reflected in the PCa Guidelines and future data collection. Homogeneity in PROs collection and measurement tools will in turn enable "big data" Consortia to increase the patients' voice in clinical research.
| S-EPMC7300413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMeta-analysis based on individual patient data (IPD) from randomised trials is superior to using published summary data since it facilitates subgroup and multiple variable analyses. Guidelines and funders expect that researchers share IPD for bona fide analyses, but in practice, this is done variably. Here, we report the experience of obtaining IPD for two collaborative analysis studies.SettingTwo linked studies required IPD from published randomised trials. The leading researchers for eligible trials were approached and asked to share IPD including trial characteristics, patient demographics, baseline clinical data and outcome measures.ParticipantsParticipants in eligible randomised controlled trials included patients with or at risk of cognitive decline/vascular events.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumbers (%) of trials where the leading researcher responded favourably/negatively or did not respond. If negative, reasons behind the response were collected. If positive, methods used to share IPD were recorded.ResultsAcross the two studies, 391 completed trials were identified. Email addresses for researchers were found for 313 (80%) of the trials. One hundred and forty-eight (47%) researchers did not respond despite being sent multiple emails. Following contact, positive initial responses were received from 92 researchers, resulting in IPD being shared for 78 trials. Eighty-seven (28%) researchers declined to share data; justifications were recorded. The median time from first request to accessing data in one study was 241 (IQR 383.3) days. IPD sources included: direct from researcher, via academic trial funders repository and a website requiring remote analysis of commercial data. Where data were shared, a variety of methods were used to transfer data.ConclusionSharing of IPD from trials is desirable and a requirement of many funding bodies. However, accessing IPD faces multiple challenges including refusals to share, delays in access to data and having to perform analyses on a remote website.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC7482449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The study sought to design symptom reports of longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data that are understandable and meaningful to end users. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We completed a 2-phase iterative design and evaluation process. In phase I, we developed symptom reports and refined them according to expert input. End users then completed a survey containing demographics, a measure of health literacy, and items to assess visualization preferences and comprehension of reports. We then collected participants' perspectives on reports through semistructured interviews and modified them accordingly. In phase II, refined reports were evaluated in a survey that included demographics, validated measures of health and graph literacy, and items to assess preferences and comprehension of reports. Surveys were administered using a think-aloud protocol. RESULTS:Fifty-five English- and Spanish-speaking end users, 89.1% of whom had limited health literacy, participated. In phase I, experts recommended improvements and 20 end users evaluated reports. From the feedback received, we added emojis, changed date and font formats, and simplified the y-axis scale of reports. In phase II, 35 end users evaluated refined designs, of whom 94.3% preferred reports with emojis, the favorite being a bar graph combined with emojis, which also promoted comprehension. In both phases, participants literally interpreted reports and provided suggestions for future visualizations. CONCLUSIONS:A bar graph combined with emojis was participants' preferred format and the one that promoted comprehension. Target end users must be included in visualization design to identify literal interpretations of images and ensure final products are meaningful.
| S-EPMC7025335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking.ObjectiveWe evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared.ResultsWe identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment.DiscussionsOnly one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.
| S-EPMC10965683 | biostudies-literature