The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

BackgroundThe EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D.MethodsAn Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy.ResultsA total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death.ConclusionsThis study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-017-0582-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important information about the impact of treatment from the patients' perspective. However, missing PRO data may compromise the interpretability and value of the findings. We aimed to report: (1) a non-technical summary of problems caused by missing PRO data; and (2) a systematic review by collating strategies to: (A) minimise rates of missing PRO data, and (B) facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data in clinical research. Our systematic review does not address statistical handling of missing PRO data.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases (inception to 31 March 2015), and citing articles and reference lists from relevant sources.Eligibility criteriaEnglish articles providing recommendations for reducing missing PRO data rates, or strategies to facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data were included.Methods2 reviewers independently screened articles against eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved with the research team. Recommendations were extracted and coded according to framework synthesis.Results117 sources (55% discussion papers, 26% original research) met the eligibility criteria. Design and methodological strategies for reducing rates of missing PRO data included: incorporating PRO-specific information into the protocol; carefully designing PRO assessment schedules and defining termination rules; minimising patient burden; appointing a PRO coordinator; PRO-specific training for staff; ensuring PRO studies are adequately resourced; and continuous quality assurance. Strategies for transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data include utilising auxiliary data to inform analysis; transparently reporting baseline PRO scores, rates and reasons for missing data; and methods for handling missing PRO data.ConclusionsThe instance of missing PRO data and its potential to bias clinical research can be minimised by implementing thoughtful design, rigorous methodology and transparent reporting strategies. All members of the research team have a responsibility in implementing such strategies.

BackgroundQualitative 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 FindingsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.