What's missing in patient-reported outcome reporting? A scoping review and aggregated trial-level analysis of completion rates in oncology randomized controlled trials.
리뷰
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
환자: solid tumors (breast, bladder, colorectal, gynecological, prostate, or lung)
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
[INTERPRETATION] PRO completion rates in cancer RCTs remain challenging as they vary across settings, particularly beyond baseline, and reporting on missing data is often inadequate. These findings highlight the need for improved reporting and greater prioritization of PRO completion regardless of trial design.
[BACKGROUND] Missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data undermine the ability to draw robust conclusions from PRO endpoints included in cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
APA
Krepper D, Hubel NJ, et al. (2026). What's missing in patient-reported outcome reporting? A scoping review and aggregated trial-level analysis of completion rates in oncology randomized controlled trials.. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 218, 105100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.105100
MLA
Krepper D, et al.. "What's missing in patient-reported outcome reporting? A scoping review and aggregated trial-level analysis of completion rates in oncology randomized controlled trials.." Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, vol. 218, 2026, pp. 105100.
PMID
41448296 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[BACKGROUND] Missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data undermine the ability to draw robust conclusions from PRO endpoints included in cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review aimed to systematically evaluate PRO completion rates and identify trial characteristics associated with completion.
[METHODS] We conducted a scoping review searching for RCTs published on PubMed between 2019 and 2023. We searched for RCTs evaluating biomedical interventions in patients with solid tumors (breast, bladder, colorectal, gynecological, prostate, or lung). Trials were eligible if they used commonly applied cancer-specific PRO measures and reported information on completion. For each trial, we extracted or calculated completion rates at baseline and first post-baseline assessment, reasons for missingness, and trial characteristics. We used regression models to examine associations between trial characteristics and completion.
[FINDINGS] We identified 222 eligible trials from 9331 screened references. Mean baseline PRO completion rates were 91·3 % (control) and 92·1 % (intervention), declining to 82·1 % and 82·9 % at the first post-baseline assessment. Reasons for missing PRO data were documented in only 18 % of trials. Industry-sponsored trials exhibited significantly higher completion rates compared to non-industry-sponsored trials. Trials with double-blind designs had higher completion rates than open-label trials, while no difference between treatment arms was found. Electronic PRO assessment was not significantly associated with higher completion rates.
[INTERPRETATION] PRO completion rates in cancer RCTs remain challenging as they vary across settings, particularly beyond baseline, and reporting on missing data is often inadequate. These findings highlight the need for improved reporting and greater prioritization of PRO completion regardless of trial design.
[METHODS] We conducted a scoping review searching for RCTs published on PubMed between 2019 and 2023. We searched for RCTs evaluating biomedical interventions in patients with solid tumors (breast, bladder, colorectal, gynecological, prostate, or lung). Trials were eligible if they used commonly applied cancer-specific PRO measures and reported information on completion. For each trial, we extracted or calculated completion rates at baseline and first post-baseline assessment, reasons for missingness, and trial characteristics. We used regression models to examine associations between trial characteristics and completion.
[FINDINGS] We identified 222 eligible trials from 9331 screened references. Mean baseline PRO completion rates were 91·3 % (control) and 92·1 % (intervention), declining to 82·1 % and 82·9 % at the first post-baseline assessment. Reasons for missing PRO data were documented in only 18 % of trials. Industry-sponsored trials exhibited significantly higher completion rates compared to non-industry-sponsored trials. Trials with double-blind designs had higher completion rates than open-label trials, while no difference between treatment arms was found. Electronic PRO assessment was not significantly associated with higher completion rates.
[INTERPRETATION] PRO completion rates in cancer RCTs remain challenging as they vary across settings, particularly beyond baseline, and reporting on missing data is often inadequate. These findings highlight the need for improved reporting and greater prioritization of PRO completion regardless of trial design.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (2)
- Evaluating quality of life in thoracic malignancy trials: A scoping review on ESMO-MCBS quality of life checklist adherence and concordance with progression-free and overall survival.
- Lack of precision in the reporting of sex and gender in cancer clinical trials with a PRO endpoint: an exploratory literature review.
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- A Phase I Study of Hydroxychloroquine and Suba-Itraconazole in Men with Biochemical Relapse of Prostate Cancer (HITMAN-PC): Dose Escalation Results.
- Self-management of male urinary symptoms: qualitative findings from a primary care trial.
- Clinical and Liquid Biomarkers of 20-Year Prostate Cancer Risk in Men Aged 45 to 70 Years.
- Diagnostic accuracy of Ga-PSMA PET/CT versus multiparametric MRI for preoperative pelvic invasion in the patients with prostate cancer.
- Comprehensive analysis of androgen receptor splice variant target gene expression in prostate cancer.
- Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Cancer.