4.5 Review

International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review

Journal

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Volume 30, Issue 1, Pages 21-40

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-020-02625-z

Keywords

Outcome assessment; Quality of life; Guidance as topic; Health care; Clinical trials; Oncology

Funding

  1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Eugene Washington Engagement Award [12565-JHU, NCI P30 CA006973]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is substantial agreement among guidance documents on the appropriate considerations for PROM selection in clinical trials, with variations primarily in format and perspectives among different organizations. This consensus supports the use of major guidance documents without concern of conflicting recommendations.
Purpose Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients' perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations. Methods We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Results Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria. Conclusion The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium's ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available