Patient-Reported Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

Cao, Austin C.; Lu, Joseph; Hobday, Sara; Cohen, Ethan David; Sun, Ling; Lukens, John N.; Brody, Robert M.

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.12.138

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The great variety of PROs might be related to the large number of instruments used to assess PROs. For example, a recent systematic review 11 identified 116 different instruments to assess health‐related quality‐of‐life outcomes after interventions for treating head and neck cancer. We also found a great variety of instruments used to measure non‐PROs and PROs in the present sample of RCTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and non‐PROs in randomized controlled trials addressing head/neck cancers

Gode,

Faggion

2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo assess the frequency of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) and non‐PROs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing head/neck cancers.MethodsWe included RCTs about interventions to treat head/neck cancers. PubMed was searched on September 16, 2022 and included studies published during three periods (2000–2002, 2010–2012, and 2020–2022). Data on types of outcomes and instruments to measure them were extracted and organized into PROs and non‐PROs, and temporal trends for reporting outcomes were determined.ResultsThere was a reduction in the frequency of non‐PROs (40% to 22%) and an increase in PROs (5% to 19%) over 20 years. The frequency of reporting both non‐PROs and PROs seemed to be stable over the same period (55% to 58%). A great variety of instruments to measure PROs and non‐PROs was identified.ConclusionsThere has been a growth in the types of PROs in more recent years, and they were more frequently reported in RCTs. However, head/neck cancer trials with a combination of PROs and non‐PROs were the most prevalent.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%