Patient-reported outcomes in stroke clinical trials 2002–2016: a systematic review
Given the global and economic burden of stroke as a major cause of long-term disability, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from clinical trials can elucidate differential benefits/harms of interventions from patients’ perspectives and influence clinical decision making in stroke care management.
This systematic review examines stroke-related randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in 12 high-impact journals between 2002 and 2016 for (1) associations between trial characteristics and the reporting of PRO measures; and (2) psychometric properties of PRO instruments used in these studies. The study combines clinical trials identified in a prior review with trials identified with an updated literature search.
Only 34 of 159 stroke-related RCTs reported PRO measures. Among the 34 trials, most were published in rehabilitation and general medical journals, were conducted in the United States or Europe, were funded by government/non-industry sponsors, and focused on post-stroke care. Thirty-one PRO instruments were employed in these studies. Only 5 instruments were stroke-specific measures, whereas the remaining 26 instruments were generic measures. Eight instruments assessed functional status, 9 measured quality of life, and 14 assessed symptoms. The most common health domains measured were emotional status and physical function.
This study highlights the paucity of information from patients’ perspective in stroke-related RCTs. This trend may change over time as researchers increase adherence to reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols.
KeywordsStroke Randomized controlled trial Patient-reported outcome measures
The staff of the Ochsner Medical Library conducted the literature search. Jeffrey Burton, PhD (Ochsner Center for Applied Health Services Research) conducted the descriptive statistics. Richard Zweifler, MD (Ochsner Neurology Stroke Center) conducted a review of the manuscript. Abstracts of this work were presented at the 2017 Southern Society for Clinical Investigations regional conference and 2017 International Stroke Conference.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to report with this study.
- 1.Benjamin, E. J., Blaha, M. J., Chiuve, S. E., Cushman, M., Das, S. R., Deo, R., et al. American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee. (2017). Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 135(10), e146–e603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 19 March, 2018, from https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm193282.pdf.
- 5.Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., et al. International Society for Quality of Life Research (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Stewart, A. L., & Ware, J. E. (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Watkins, C., Leathley, M., & Davies, A. (1998). The stroke expectations questionnaire (seq): Identification of patients’ ideas about recovery. Clinical Rehabilitation, 12, 173–175.Google Scholar
- 11.Watkins, C., Leathley, M., & Davies, A. (1998). The stroke expectations questionnaire (seq): A predictor of outcome? Clinical Rehabilitation, 12, 173.Google Scholar
- 28.Wilke, C. T., Pickard, A. S., Walton, S. M., Moock, J., Kohlmann, T., & Lee, T. A. (2010). Statistical implications of utility weighted and equally weighted hrql measures: An empirical study. Health Economics, 19, 101–110.Google Scholar
- 32.Gandek, B., Ware, J. E., Aaronson, N. K., Apolone, G., Bjorner, J. B., Brazier, J. E., et al. (1998). Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the sf-12 health survey in nine countries: Results from the iqola project. International quality of life assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1171–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Nadarajah, M., Mazlan, M., Abdul-Latif, L., & Goh, H. T. (2016) Test-retest reliability, internal consistency and concurrent validity of fatigue severity scale in measuring post-stroke fatigue. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 53(5), 703–709.Google Scholar
- 52.Wikberg, C., Nejati, S., Larsson, M. E., Petersson, E. L., Westman, J., Ariai, N., et al. Comparison between the montgomery-asberg depression rating scale-self and the beck depression inventory ii in primary care. The Primary Care Companion for CNS Disorders. 2015;17.Google Scholar
- 53.McNair, D. M., Lorr, M., & Droppleman, L. F. (1971). Manual for the profile of mood states. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.Google Scholar
- 58.Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., Palmer, M. J., & Brundage, M. (2017). International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) best practice for PROs—reporting taskforce. Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of Life Research, 26(6), 1427–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 60.Kane, R. L., & Radosevich, D. M. (LLC 2011). Conducting health outcomes research. Sudbury: Johns & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
- 63.Reeve, B. B., Wyrwich, K. W., Wu, A. W., Velikova, G., Terwee, C. B., Snyder, C. F., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar