Evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols

Background Qualitative evidence suggests patient-reported outcome (PRO) information is frequently absent from clinical trial protocols, potentially leading to inconsistent PRO data collection and risking bias. Direct evidence regarding PRO trial protocol content is lacking. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the PRO-specific content of UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme trial protocols. Methods and Findings We conducted an electronic search of the NIHR HTA programme database (inception to August 2013) for protocols describing a randomised controlled trial including a primary/secondary PRO. Two investigators independently reviewed the content of each protocol, using a specially constructed PRO-specific protocol checklist, alongside the ‘Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials’ (SPIRIT) checklist. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third investigator. 75 trial protocols were included in the analysis. Protocols included a mean of 32/51 (63%) SPIRIT recommendations (range 16–41, SD 5.62) and 11/33 (33%) PRO-specific items (range 4–18, SD 3.56). Over half (61%) of the PRO items were incomplete. Protocols containing a primary PRO included slightly more PRO checklist items (mean 14/33 (43%)). PRO protocol content was not associated with general protocol completeness; thus, protocols judged as relatively ‘complete’ using SPIRIT were still likely to have omitted a large proportion of PRO checklist items. Conclusions The PRO components of HTA clinical trial protocols require improvement. Information on the PRO rationale/hypothesis, data collection methods, training and management was often absent. This low compliance is unsurprising; evidence shows existing PRO guidance for protocol developers remains difficult to access and lacks consistency. Study findings suggest there are a number of PRO protocol checklist items that are not fully addressed by the current SPIRIT statement. We therefore advocate the development of consensus-based supplementary guidelines, aimed at improving the completeness and quality of PRO content in clinical trial protocols.

[1]  R. Fleming.  Equity and Excellence: liberating the NHS , 2010 .

[2]  R. Grol,et al.  Development of indicators for patient-centred cancer care , 2009, Supportive Care in Cancer.

[3]  David Moher,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials , 2013, BMJ.

[4]  P. Glasziou,et al.  Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence , 2009, The Lancet.

[5]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[6]  Albert W Wu,et al.  The Use of Patient-reported Outcomes (PRO) Within Comparative Effectiveness Research: Implications for Clinical Practice and Health Care Policy , 2012, Medical care.

[7]  N. Freemantle,et al.  Use of health‐related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 1: why evaluate health‐related quality of life? , 2003, Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics.

[8]  D. Rennie,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. , 2013, Annals of internal medicine.

[9]  U. S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Cen Research,et al.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance , 2006, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[10]  H. Draper,et al.  Patient-reported outcome alerts: ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. , 2013, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[11]  M. Okano,et al.  Cohort Study , 2020, Definitions.

[12]  Inconsistencies in Quality of Life Data Collection in Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Bias? Interviews with Research Nurses and Trialists , 2013, PloS one.

[13]  M. King,et al.  Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Assessment in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Guidance for Trial Protocol Writers , 2014, PloS one.

[14]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  D. Moher,et al.  Developing a guideline for clinical trial protocol content: Delphi consensus survey , 2012, Trials.

[16]  Michael A Babyak,et al.  What You See May Not Be What You Get: A Brief, Nontechnical Introduction to Overfitting in Regression-Type Models , 2004, Psychosomatic medicine.

[17]  J. Raftery,et al.  Health Technology Assessment in the UK , 2013, The Lancet.

[18]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Comparison of descriptions of allocation concealment in trial protocols and the published reports: cohort study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Reporting on blinding in trial protocols and corresponding publications was often inadequate but rarely contradictory. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[20]  I J Higginson,et al.  Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting , 2001, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.