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
. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2211644.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.11644.

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China

Hui Zhou  1   2 , Mi Yao  3 , Xiaodan Gu  1 , Mingrui Liu  4 , Ruifeng Zeng  1 , Qin Li  5 , Tingjia Chen  6 , Wen He  5 , Xiao Chen  2 , Gang Yuan  1   5
Affiliations

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China

Hui Zhou et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Regulatory authorities, industry peers, and international health policies have emphasized the value of assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies. Despite the increase in the number of clinical studies in the last decade in China, little is known about the extent of the use of PROs.

Objective: To evaluate the application and characteristics of PRO instruments as primary and secondary outcomes in randomized clinical trials in China.

Design, setting, and participants: A cross-sectional study of interventional clinical trials conducted in China from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was performed. Data obtained from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were evaluated.

Main outcomes and measures: Trials were categorized according to those that (1) precisely listed PRO tools as outcomes, (2) mentioned patient subjective feelings in outcomes but did not clarify which tools were used for assessment, and (3) did not mention any PRO measurements. Data on study phase, setting, participant age, and sex were extracted from trials that considered patient feelings, along with the target diseases and names of the PRO tools.

Results: Among a total of 34 033 trials, 6915 (20.3%) listed the explicit PRO instruments used and 3178 (9.3%) included PRO in their outcomes but did not include the names of the assessment tools. From more than 32 million people included in the registered trials, data on 1.5 million (4.7%) patients were scientifically collected by PRO instruments, and subjective feelings were assessed for 693 867 (2.1%) participants. Pain (16.8%), cancer (15.6%), and musculoskeletal symptoms (13.3%) were the most common conditions for which PROs were precisely collected by tools. The most common tools for PRO measurements were the visual analog scale, Short-Form 36, and Hamilton Depression Scale.

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the use of PROs increased during the study period in clinical trials conducted in China. However, patient opinion appears to still be rarely measured. The application of PRO is geographically unevenly distributed. Development of PRO instruments, especially those suitable for the Chinese population, may be useful. Further expansion of PROs with respect to the scope of diseases is needed to avoid missing important data.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Trial Exclusion and Classification Criteria
PRO indicates patient-reported outcome.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Number of Clinical Trials Analyzed
PRO indicates patient-reported outcome.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. Number of Trials and Participants With Explicitly and Implicitly Specified Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, et al. ; the SPIRIT-PRO Group . Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. JAMA. 2018;319(5):483-494. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21903 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mehran R, Baber U, Dangas G. Guidelines for patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols. JAMA. 2018;319(5):450-451. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.21541 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Doward LC, Gnanasakthy A, Baker MG. Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:89. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-89 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. US Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
    1. The Lancet Neurology . Patient-reported outcomes in the spotlight. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(11):981. doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30357-6 - DOI - PubMed