Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Jul 1:11:109.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-109.

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses--Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes

Bradley C Johnston  1 , Donald L Patrick, Jason W Busse, Holger J Schünemann, Arnav Agarwal, Gordon H Guyatt
Affiliations
Review

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses--Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes

Bradley C Johnston et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness.The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes.We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients' quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sources and examples of patient outcomes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
GRADE’s approach to rating quality of evidence (aka confidence in effect estimates).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services (US), Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); 2009. [ http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformati...] - PubMed
    1. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Swiglo BA, Isley WL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299(21):2543–2549. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.21.2543. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yohannes AM, Roomi J, Waters K, Connolly MJ. Quality of life in elderly patients with COPD: measurement and predictive factors. Respir Med. 1998;92:1231–1236. doi: 10.1016/S0954-6111(98)90426-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones PW. Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2001;56(11):880–887. doi: 10.1136/thorax.56.11.880. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Muller-Buhl U, Wiesemann A, Oser B, Kirchberger I, Strecker EP. Correlation of hemodynamic and functional variables with the angiographic extent of peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Vasc Med. 1999;4:247–251. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources