Clinical Outcome Assessments: Conceptual Foundation-Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force.

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient's health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment's benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is on the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment's intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of the patient's typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or when it is difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the COI. The relationship of these measurements with how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: patient reported outcomes, clinician reported outcomes, observer reported outcomes, and performance outcomes. A full description as well as explanation of other important COA features is included in this report. The information in this report should aid in the development, refinement, and standardization of COAs, and, ultimately, improve their measurement properties.

[1]  David Cella,et al.  Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[2]  Anne W. Riley,et al.  Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[3]  J. Brodersen,et al.  The development and validation of a multidimensional sum-scaling questionnaire to measure patient-reported outcomes in acute respiratory tract infections in primary care: the acute respiratory tract infection questionnaire. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[4]  L B Mokkink,et al.  Performance-based methods for measuring the physical function of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. , 2006, Rheumatology.

[5]  C. Terwee,et al.  The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  S. Thomas,et al.  Assessing Craving for Alcohol , 1999, Alcohol research & health : the journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

[7]  C. Häger,et al.  Measurement properties of the Motor Evaluation Scale for Upper Extremity in Stroke patients (MESUPES) , 2012, Disability and rehabilitation.

[8]  S. V. Elsland,et al.  Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. , 2011, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[9]  J. Schulz,et al.  Monitoring progression in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA): the use of clinical scales , 2013, Journal of neurochemistry.

[10]  Jerome Danoff,et al.  Evidence-based rating of upper-extremity motor function tests used for people following a stroke. , 2004, Physical therapy.

[11]  Jan D Bos,et al.  How good are clinical severity and outcome measures for psoriasis?: quantitative evaluation in a systematic review. , 2010, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[12]  J. Hobart,et al.  Rating scales for neurologists , 2003, Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry.

[13]  M. Suarez‐Almazor,et al.  Current status of outcome measure development for clinical trials in systemic sclerosis. Report from OMERACT 6. , 2003, The Journal of rheumatology.

[14]  D. DeMets,et al.  Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework , 2001, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[15]  Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Naturalistic assessment of everyday functioning in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: the day-out task. , 2012, Neuropsychology.

[16]  Elizabeth Molsen,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2--assessing respondent understanding. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  Caroline B Terwee,et al.  What makes a measurement instrument valid and reliable? , 2011, Injury.

[18]  A. Thompson,et al.  Evaluating neurological outcome measures : the bare essentials , 2022 .

[19]  Jeremy C Hobart,et al.  Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations , 2007, The Lancet Neurology.

[20]  H. Williams,et al.  The patient-oriented eczema measure: development and initial validation of a new tool for measuring atopic eczema severity from the patients' perspective. , 2004, Archives of dermatology.

[21]  Academisch Proefschrift,et al.  UvA-DARE ( Digital Academic Repository ) Clinimetrics , clinical profile and prognosis in early Parkinson ’ s disease , 2009 .

[22]  D. Wild,et al.  Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. , 2005, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[23]  A. Bayat,et al.  The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation. , 2010, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[24]  N. Leidy,et al.  Content validity--establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1--eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  J. Hobart,et al.  International cooperative ataxia rating scale (ICARS): Appropriate for studies of Friedreich's ataxia? , 2005, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[26]  I. Wiklund,et al.  Development of the Shortness of Breath with Daily Activities questionnaire (SOBDA). , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  E. Leskinen,et al.  Measures of physical functioning predict self-reported performance in self-care, mobility, and domestic life in ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis. , 2007, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[28]  D. A. Gold,et al.  An examination of instrumental activities of daily living assessment in older adults and mild cognitive impairment , 2012, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[29]  M. Walters,et al.  Functional Outcome Measures in Contemporary Stroke Trials , 2009, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[30]  J. Hobart,et al.  Evaluating change in mobility in people with multiple sclerosis: relative responsiveness of four clinical measures , 2013, Multiple sclerosis.

[31]  P. Tonali,et al.  Myasthenia gravis outcome measure: development and validation of a disease-specific self-administered questionnaire , 2002, Neurological Sciences.

[32]  P. Marquis,et al.  Qualitative Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Measure in Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome , 2014, Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

[33]  Elizabeth Molsen,et al.  Multinational trials-recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[34]  Pennifer Erickson,et al.  Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[35]  S. Haley,et al.  Development of an applied cognition scale to measure rehabilitation outcomes. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[36]  Jean Paty,et al.  PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force. , 2014, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.