Suppr超能文献

探索患者报告结局指标在癌症护理中的实施情况:同行评审文献中对更多真实世界证据的需求及结果

Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature.

作者信息

Anatchkova Milena, Donelson Sarah M, Skalicky Anne M, McHorney Colleen A, Jagun Dayo, Whiteley Jennifer

机构信息

Patient-Centered Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.

, San Francisco, California, USA.

出版信息

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Dec 27;2(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To explore the existing evidence of the real-world implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical practice and address two aims: (1) summarize available evidence of PRO use in clinical practice using a framework based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) PRO Implementation Guide; and (2) describe reports of real-world, standardized PRO administration in oncology conducted outside of scope of a research study.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was developed to guide the systematic literature review (SLR) that was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. A two step search strategy was implemented including two searches based on previously completed reviews. Studies published from 2006 to 2017 were synthesized using a framework based on the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide.

RESULTS

After screening 4427 abstracts, 36 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most elements of the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide were followed. Two notable exceptions were found: 1) providing PRO score interpretation guidelines (39% of studies); and 2) providing patient-management guidance for addressing issues identified by PROs (25% of studies). Of the 22 studies with an intervention component, 19 (86%) reported intervention effects on study outcomes. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most commonly used PRO (n = 10, 28%); use of 38 other PRO measures was also reported. Only three studies (8%) reported real-world PRO implementation.

CONCLUSION

Reports of real-world PRO implementation are limited. Reports from studies conducted in clinical settings suggest gaps in information on PRO score interpretation and the use of PRO results to inform patient management. Before the promise of practice-based PRO assessment in oncology can be truly realized, investigators need to advance the state-of-the-art of real-time PRO score interpretation as well as developing guidance on how to use PRO insights to drive clinically-meaningful patient-management strategies.

摘要

背景

探讨肿瘤临床实践中患者报告结局(PROs)实际应用的现有证据,并实现两个目标:(1)使用基于国际生活质量研究协会(ISOQOL)PRO实施指南的框架,总结临床实践中PRO使用的现有证据;(2)描述在研究范围之外进行的肿瘤学领域真实世界、标准化PRO管理的报告。

方法

制定了系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)方案,以指导在MEDLINE和Embase数据库中进行的系统文献综述(SLR)。实施了两步搜索策略,包括基于先前完成的综述进行的两次搜索。使用基于ISOQOL PRO实施指南的框架对2006年至2017年发表的研究进行综合分析。

结果

在筛选了4427篇摘要后,36项研究符合纳入标准。ISOQOL PRO实施指南的大多数要素都得到了遵循。发现两个明显的例外情况:1)提供PRO评分解释指南(39%的研究);2)为解决PROs识别出的问题提供患者管理指导(25%的研究)。在22项有干预成分的研究中,19项(86%)报告了干预对研究结局的影响。欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织生活质量核心问卷30(EORTC QLQ-C30)是最常用的PRO(n = 10,28%);还报告了使用其他38种PRO测量方法。只有三项研究(8%)报告了真实世界的PRO实施情况。

结论

真实世界PRO实施的报告有限。临床环境中进行的研究报告表明,在PRO评分解释信息以及使用PRO结果为患者管理提供信息方面存在差距。在肿瘤学中基于实践的PRO评估的前景能够真正实现之前,研究人员需要推进实时PRO评分解释的技术水平,并制定关于如何利用PRO见解推动具有临床意义的患者管理策略的指南。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/51d5/6306371/bd38d5241a94/41687_2018_91_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验