Reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of lung cancer: Based on the CONSORT-PRO extension
- VernacularTitle:肺癌随机对照试验中患者报告结局的质量评价及影响因素：基于CONSORT-PRO扩展版
- Author:
Guiying ZHANG
1
;
Yueyuan YOU
1
;
Xiaoqin ZHOU
2
;
Jing LI
1
Author Information
1. Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-Based Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P. R. China
2. Center of Biostatistics, Design, Measurement and Evaluation (CBDME), Department of Clinical Research Management, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Lung cancer;
patient-reported outcomes;
randomized controlled trials;
CONSORT-PRO;
reporting quality assessment
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2025;32(03):322-331
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
