Rees Jonathan R, Whale Katie, Fish Daniel, Fayers Peter, Cafaro Valentina, Pusic Andrea, Blazeby Jane M, Efficace Fabio
Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015 Dec;141(12):2181-92. doi: 10.1007/s00432-015-1970-x. Epub 2015 Apr 25.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the most robust study design measuring outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC) treatments, but to influence clinical practice trial design and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) must be of high quality. Objectives of this study were as follows: to examine the quality of PRO reporting in RCTs of CRC treatment; to assess the availability of robust data to inform clinical decision-making; and to investigate whether quality of reporting improved over time.
A systematic review from January 2004-February 2012 identified RCTs of CRC treatment describing PROs. Relevant abstracts were screened and manuscripts obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using International Society for Quality of Life Research-patient-reported outcome reporting standards. Changes in reporting quality over time were established by comparison with previous data, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
Sixty-six RCTs were identified, seven studies (10 %) reported survival benefit favouring the experimental treatment, 35 trials (53 %) identified differences in PROs between treatment groups, and the clinical significance of these differences was discussed in 19 studies (29 %). The most commonly reported treatment type was chemotherapy (n = 45; 68 %). Improvements over time in key methodological issues including the documentation of missing data and the discussion of the clinical significance of PROs were found. Thirteen trials (20 %) had high-quality reporting.
Whilst improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, several recent studies still fail to robustly inform clinical practice. Quality of PRO reporting must continue to improve to maximise the clinical impact of PRO findings.
随机对照试验(RCT)是衡量结直肠癌(CRC)治疗效果最可靠的研究设计,但要影响临床实践,试验设计以及患者报告结局(PRO)的报告质量必须很高。本研究的目的如下:检查CRC治疗RCT中PRO报告的质量;评估用于临床决策的可靠数据的可用性;调查报告质量是否随时间有所改善。
对2004年1月至2012年2月期间的研究进行系统回顾,以确定描述PRO的CRC治疗RCT。筛选相关摘要并获取手稿。使用国际生活质量研究协会的患者报告结局报告标准评估方法学质量。通过与先前数据比较确定报告质量随时间的变化,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。
共识别出66项RCT,7项研究(10%)报告实验性治疗有生存获益,35项试验(53%)确定治疗组间PRO存在差异,19项研究(29%)讨论了这些差异的临床意义。最常报告的治疗类型是化疗(n = 45;68%)。发现关键方法学问题随时间有所改善,包括缺失数据的记录以及PRO临床意义的讨论。13项试验(20%)报告质量较高。
虽然发现PRO报告质量随时间有所改善,但最近的一些研究仍未能有力地为临床实践提供信息。PRO报告质量必须持续提高,以最大限度地发挥PRO研究结果的临床影响。