Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses--Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes

Bradley C Johnston, Donald L Patrick, Jason W Busse, Holger J Schünemann, Arnav Agarwal, Gordon H Guyatt, Bradley C Johnston, Donald L Patrick, Jason W Busse, Holger J Schünemann, Arnav Agarwal, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients and clinicians facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on combining PROs in meta-analysis is likely to enhance their usefulness.The objectives of this paper are: i) to describe PROs and why they are important for health care decision-making, ii) illustrate the key risk of bias issues that systematic reviewers should consider and, iii) address outcome characteristics of PROs and provide guidance for combining outcomes.We suggest a step-by-step approach to addressing issues of PROs in meta-analyses. Systematic reviewers should begin by asking themselves if trials have addressed all the important effects of treatment on patients' quality of life. If the trials have addressed PROs, have investigators chosen the appropriate instruments? In particular, does evidence suggest the PROs used are valid and responsive, and is the review free of outcome reporting bias? Systematic reviewers must then decide how to categorize PROs and when to pool results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Sources and examples of patient outcomes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
GRADE’s approach to rating quality of evidence (aka confidence in effect estimates).

References

    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services (US), Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER); 2009. [ ]
    1. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Elamin MB, Swiglo BA, Isley WL, Guyatt GH, Montori VM. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299(21):2543–2549. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.21.2543.
    1. Yohannes AM, Roomi J, Waters K, Connolly MJ. Quality of life in elderly patients with COPD: measurement and predictive factors. Respir Med. 1998;92:1231–1236. doi: 10.1016/S0954-6111(98)90426-7.
    1. Jones PW. Health status measurement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Thorax. 2001;56(11):880–887. doi: 10.1136/thorax.56.11.880.
    1. Muller-Buhl U, Wiesemann A, Oser B, Kirchberger I, Strecker EP. Correlation of hemodynamic and functional variables with the angiographic extent of peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Vasc Med. 1999;4:247–251.
    1. Muller-Buhl U, Engeser P, Klimm HD, Wiesemann A. Quality of life and objective disease criteria in patients with intermittent claudication in general practice. Fam Pract. 2003;20:36–40. doi: 10.1093/fampra/20.1.36.
    1. Hannan MT, Felson DT, Pincus T. Analysis of the discordance between radiographic changes and knee pain in osteoarthritis of the knee. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1513–1517.
    1. Guyatt GH, Naylor CD, Juniper E, Heyland DK, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature: XII. How to use articles about health-related quality of life. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1232–1237. doi: 10.1001/jama.1997.03540390062037.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–998. doi: 10.1136/.
    1. Schünemann HJ, Oxman A, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Chapter 11 – Presenting Results and Summary of Findings Tables: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2011 Version 5.1.0. [ ]
    1. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, Jenkinson C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5707.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, Alderson P, Glasziou P, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):395–400. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012. a.
    1. Patrick DL, Erickson P, Health Status and Health Policy. Quality of Life in Health Care Evaluation and Resource Allocation. New York (NY): Oxford University Press; 1993.
    1. Tarlov AR, Ware JE Jr, Greenfield S, Nelson EC, Perrin E, Zubkoff M. The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA. 1989;262:925–930. doi: 10.1001/jama.1989.03430070073033.
    1. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1995;33:AS264–AS279.
    1. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–233. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
    1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring Health Related Quality of Life: Basic Sciences Review. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622–629. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009.
    1. Johnston BC, Donen R, Pooni A, Pond J, Xie F, Giglia L, Kam A, Bhamber A, Bami K, Patel Y, Guyatt GH. Conceptual framework for health-related quality of life assessment in acute gastroenteritis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;56(3):280–289. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182736f49.
    1. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, Ring L. 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. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–977. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014.
    1. Wiebe S, Guyatt GH, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality of life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(1):52–60. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00537-1.
    1. Hahn S, Williamson PR, Hutton JL, Garner P, Flynn EV. Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Stat Med. 2000;19:3325–3336. doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3325::AID-SIM827>;2-D.
    1. Tannock IF. False positive results in clinical trials: multiple significance tests and the problem of unreported comparisons. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(3–4):206–207.
    1. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–2465. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.
    1. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. 2004;171:735–740.
    1. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson PR. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365.
    1. Furukawa TA, Watanabe N, Omori IM, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Association between unreported outcomes and effect size estimates in Cochrane meta-analyses. JAMA. 2007;297(5):468–470.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso-Coello P, Montori V, Akl EA, Djulbegovic B, Falck-Ytter Y, Norris SL, Williams JW Jr, Atkins D, Meerpohl J, Schünemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence--study limitations (risk of bias) J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.017. b.
    1. Patient Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Instruments Database. [ ]
    1. Martinez-Devesa P, Waddell A, Perera R, Theodoulou M. Cognitive behavioural therapy for tinnitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007. p. CD005233.
    1. Rutten-van Mölken M, Roos B, Van Noord JA. An empirical comparison of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) in a clinical trial setting. Thorax. 1999;54:995–1003. doi: 10.1136/thx.54.11.995.
    1. Singh SJ, Sodergren SC, Hyland ME, Williams J, Morgan MD. A comparison of three disease-specific and two generic health-status measures to evaluate the outcome of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Respir Med. 2001;95:71–77. doi: 10.1053/rmed.2000.0976.
    1. Schünemann HJ, Goldstein R, Mador MJ, McKim D, Stahl E, Puhan MA, Griffith LE, Grant B, Austin P, Collins R, Guyatt GH. A randomised trial to evaluate the self-administered standardised chronic respiratory questionnaire. Eur Respir J. 2005;25:31–40. doi: 10.1183/09031936.04.00029704.
    1. Puhan M, Soesilo I, Guyatt GH, Schünemann HJ. Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:94. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-94.
    1. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schunemann HJ, Xie F, Murad MH, Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analysis: the application of minimally important difference units. BMC Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2010;8(116):1–5.
    1. Johnston BC, Thorlund K, da Costa BR, Furukawa TA, Guyatt GH. New methods can extend the use of minimal important difference units in meta-analyses of continuous outcome measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(8):817–826. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.02.008.
    1. Busse JW, Montori VM, Krasnik C, Patelis-Siotis I, Guyatt GH. Psychological intervention for premenstrual syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Psychother Psychosom. 2009;78:6–15. doi: 10.1159/000162296.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する