...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
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：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)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相关主题

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.

著录项

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