Advertisement

Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials

  • Lindsey M. Zhang
  • Cord SturgeonEmail author
  • Anthony D. Yang
  • Ryan P. Merkow
Chapter
  • 51 Downloads
Part of the Success in Academic Surgery book series (SIAS)

Abstract

When evaluating the outcome of an operation, surgeons are traditionally focused on issues of morbidity and mortality. Although it is extremely important to know metrics such as the occurrence of a surgical site infection or death after surgery, measuring the patient perspective is also necessary for determining the success of an operation. A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as “any report of the status of a patient’s health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.” [1] An example of a PRO might include a patient’s characterization of postoperative fatigue or their physical function satisfaction after an operation, as both determinations are made by the patients themselves and cannot be directly measured or observed. Studies have shown that clinical or physical assessments are not always reflective of how the patient actually functions or feels, highlighting the importance of incorporating PROs into surgical practice [2].

Notes

Acknowledgement

R.P.M. is supported by the Agency for Research and Healthcare Quality (K12HS023011) and an Institutional Research Grant from the American Cancer Society (IRG-18-163-24).

References

  1. 1.
    FDA Guidance for Industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Sloman R, Rosen G, Rom M, Shir Y. Nurses assessment of pain in surgical patients. J Adv Nurs. 2005;52(2):125–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03573.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA. 2012;307(15):1583–4.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mercieca-Bebber R, King MT, Calvert MJ, Stockler MR, Friedlander M. The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2018;9:353–67.  https://doi.org/10.2147/prom.s156279.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van de Graaf VA, Noorduyn JCA, Willigenburg NW, et al. Effect of early surgery vs physical therapy on knee function among patients with nonobstructive meniscal tears: the ESCAPE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(13):1328–37.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA. 2017;318(2):197–8.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cleeland CS, Wang XS, Shi Q, et al. Automated symptom alerts reduce postoperative symptom severity after cancer surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):994–1000.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.29.8315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mokkink LB, Vet HCWD, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2017;27(5):1171–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    EQ-5D. EuroQol Group. https://euroqol.org/.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–7.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, et al. Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA. 2018;319(5):483–94.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.21903.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Trials. 2010;3:c332.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309(8):814–22.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsey M. Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Cord Sturgeon
    • 3
    Email author
  • Anthony D. Yang
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ryan P. Merkow
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Chicago Medical CenterChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Division of Research and Optimal Patient CareAmerican College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Surgical Outcomes and Quality Improvement CenterNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations