首页> 外文期刊>Quality of life research: An international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation >Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: A comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)
【24h】

Reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in oncology trials: A comparison of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)

机译:在肿瘤试验中报告与健康相关的生活质量(HRQOL)数据:欧洲癌症生活质量研究与治疗组织(EORTC QLQ-C30)与癌症一般治疗功能评估(FACT-G)的比较)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: The inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to record patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data has virtually become the norm in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this fact, recent concerns have focused on the quality of reporting of HRQOL. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of HRQOL data from two common instruments in oncology RCTs. Design: A meta-review was undertaken of systematic reviews reporting HRQOL data collected using PRO instruments in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). English language articles published between 2000 and 2012 were included and evaluated against a methodology checklist. Results: Four hundred and thirty-five potential articles were identified. Six systematic reviews were included in the analysis. A total of 70,403 patients had completed PROs. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire accounted for 55 % of RCTs. Eighty per cent of RCTs had used psychometrically validated instruments; 70 % reported culturally valid instruments and almost all reported the assessment timing (96 %). Thirty per cent of RCTS reported clinical significance and missing data. In terms of methodological design, only 25 % of RCTs could be categorised as probably robust. Conclusion: The majority of oncology RCTs has shortcomings in terms of reporting HRQOL data when assessed against regulatory and methodology guidelines. These limitations will need to be addressed if HRQOL data are to be used to successfully support clinical decision-making, treatment options and labelling claims in oncology.
机译:目的:纳入记录患者健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)数据的患者报告结果(PRO)仪器,实际上已成为肿瘤学随机对照试验(RCT)的标准。尽管如此,最近的关注点仍集中在HRQOL报告的质量上。这项研究的主要目的是评估来自肿瘤学RCT中两种常用仪器的HRQOL数据报告的质量。设计:对系统评价进行了元评价,该系统评价报告了在肿瘤学随机对照试验(RCT)中使用PRO仪器收集的HRQOL数据。纳入了2000年至2012年之间发表的英语文章,并根据方法清单进行了评估。结果:确定了435篇潜在文章。分析中包括六项系统评价。共有70,403名患者完成了PRO。欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织QLQ-C30和癌症治疗功能评估-普通问卷占RCT的55%。 80%的RCT使用了经过心理计量学验证的工具; 70%的人报告了具有文化意义的手段,几乎所有人都报告了评估时间(96%)。 RCTS的百分之三十报告了临床意义和缺少数据。就方法论设计而言,只有25%的RCT可能被归类为稳健的。结论:根据法规和方法指南进行评估时,大多数肿瘤RCT在报告HRQOL数据方面存在缺陷。如果要使用HRQOL数据成功支持肿瘤学中的临床决策,治疗选择和标签要求,则必须解决这些限制。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号