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
. 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

Khaled Ahmed  1 , Derek Kyte  1 , Thomas Keeley  1 , Fabio Efficace  2 , Jo Armes  3 , Julia M Brown  4 , Lynn Calman  5 , Chris Copland  6 , Anna Gavin  7 , Adam Glaser  8 , Diana M Greenfield  9 , Anne Lanceley  10 , Rachel Taylor  11 , Galina Velikova  12 , Michael Brundage  13 , Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber  14 , Madeleine T King  15 , Melanie Calvert  1
Affiliations

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

Khaled Ahmed et al. BMJ Open. .

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.

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

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic breakdown of trial search results of interventional clinical cancer trials between 1 March 2014 and 31 December 2000. PRO, patient-reported outcome.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R et al. . The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010;340:c186 10.1136/bmj.c186 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA et al. . The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care 2012;50:1060–70. 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318268aaff - DOI - PubMed
    1. DoH. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. UK: Department of Health, 2011.
    1. Ouwens M, Hermens R, Hulscher M et al. . Development of indicators for patient-centred cancer care. Support Care Cancer 2010;18:121–30. 10.1007/s00520-009-0638-y - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. FDA. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims 2009. http://wwwfdagov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation...