Search

Purpose: To develop expert consensus on a suite of reporting standards for HRQL outcomes of RCTs., Methods: A Task Force of The International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) undertook a systematic review of the literature to identify candidate reporting standards for HRQL in RCTs. Subsequently, a web-based survey was circulated to the ISOQOL membership. Respondents were asked to rate candidate standards on a 4-point Likert scale based on their perceived value in reporting studies in which HRQL was a study outcome (primary or secondary). Results were synthesized into draft reporting guidelines, which were further reviewed by the membership to inform the final guidance., Results: Forty-six existing candidate standards for reporting HRQL results in RCTs were synthesized to produce a 40 item survey that was completed electronically by 161 respondents. The majority of respondents rated all 40 items to be either 'essential' or 'desirable' when HRQL was a primary RCT outcome. Ratings changed when HRQL was a secondary study outcome. Feedback on the survey findings resulted in the Task Force generalizing the guidance to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The final guidance, which recommends standards for use in reporting PROs generally, and more specifically, for PROs identified as primary study outcomes, was approved by the ISOQOL Board of Directors., Conclusions: ISOQOL has developed a suite of recommended standards for reporting PRO results of RCTs. Improved reporting of PROs will enable accurate interpretation of evidence to inform patient choice, aid clinical decision making, and inform health policy.

Purpose: Measurement and reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQL) data have evolved considerably over the past 10 years. Our goal was to identify the current barriers to, and enablers of, the effective translation of HRQL outcome data from randomized clinical trials by investigating physician attitudes, knowledge, and education needs., Methods: We undertook a mixed qualitative and quantitative study of 33 oncologists' attitudes and educational needs around the value, interpretation, and application of HRQL data from cancer clinical trials. The approach was designed to identify barriers and enablers relating to the characteristics of the knowledge itself, to the potential users of the knowledge, and to the environment in which the knowledge is used., Results: The majority of barriers and enablers identified were "second order", i.e., related to the understandability and generalizability of the data, its presentation, its accessibility within the medical literature, and its relevance to specific patient populations., Conclusions: Our results suggest knowledge translation (KT) of HRQL results would improve if the clinical trial HRQL data were easily accessible to clinicians, and presented in a comprehensible and clinically applicable format, which includes discussion of the relevance of the measurement domains and implications of the findings. We recommend that standards of clinical trial HRQL reporting be implemented in clinical journals.

Purpose: To assess the patterns of, and trends over time in, health-related quality of life (HRQL) reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: The English-language literature of RCTs published in 2002-2008 was identified using Medline, Embase, and Healthstar databases, in addition to the Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry. Eligible trials were phase III studies that included an HRQL outcome. Data were abstracted on eight outcomes derived from previously recommended quality standards for reporting HRQL, and on four outcomes describing how HRQL data are presented in RCT reports. Two readers examined each article; discrepancies were resolved through discussion and third review if required., Results: A sample of 794 RCTs was identified. HRQL was a primary outcome in 25.4% (200/794). One hundred and ten RCTs (14%) used "supplementary" reports (separate from the first publication) to report HRQL findings. The proportion of RCTs that met the eight quality indicators ranged from 15% (HRQL used in the calculation of sample size) to 81% (reporting instrument validity). RCTs with HRQL as a primary outcome or with a supplementary report had higher concordance on the quality measures. Reporting improved on many indicators over time. Substantive variation in how HRQL data are presented in RCTs was evident., Conclusions: Current practice of reporting HRQL outcomes in RCTs remains highly variable, both with regard to quality of reporting and the patterns of data analysis and presentation. This variation presents challenges for clinicians to apply these data in clinical practice. Consistent reporting practices, which are interpretable by clinicians, are required, as are processes to achieve this consistency in future reports.