Trials with patient-reported outcomes registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR)
- 252 Downloads
It is important to understand the number, types and regions of trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to appreciate how patient experiences have been considered in studies of health and interventions. Twenty-seven percent of trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013) included PROs; however, a regional breakdown was not provided and no reviews have been conducted of the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). We aimed to identify trials registered with ANZCTR with PRO endpoints and describe their characteristics.
ANZCTR was systematically searched from inception (2005) to 31 March 2017 for trials with PRO endpoints. Search terms included PRO measures listed in Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life Instrument Database and Grid-Enabled Measures, as well as generic PRO terms (e.g. “quality of life” (QOL)). Trial endpoints were individually coded using an established framework to identify trials with PROs for the analysis.
Of 13,666 registered trials, 6168 (45.1%) included a PRO. The proportion of studies including PROs increased between 2006 and 2016 (r = 0.74, p = 0.009). Among the 6168 trials, there were 17,961 individual PRO endpoints, including symptoms/functional outcomes/condition-specific QOL (65.6%), generic QOL (13.2%), patient-reported experiences (9.9%), patient-reported behaviours (7.9%). Mental health was the most common category (99.8% included PROs), followed by physical medicine/rehabilitation (65.6%), musculoskeletal (63.5%), public health (63.1%), and cancer (54.2%).
Our findings suggest growing use of PROs in the assessment of health and interventions in ANZ. Our review identifies trial categories with limited patient-reported information and provides a basis for future work on the impact of PRO findings in clinical care.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomes Quality of life Clinical trial registration Clinical trial endpoint Patient-reported outcome measures
We acknowledge ANZCTR for providing access to the study data and in-kind support, and Thuyen Vu (ANZCTR) for assistance with the search strategy and data retrieval. This paper was reviewed and endorsed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Board of Directors as an ISOQOL publication and does not reflect an endorsement of the ISOQOL membership.
While we do not have permission to reproduce ANZCTR data used in this analysis, the ANZCTR database is publically and freely available at http://www.anzctr.org.au. Trials registered on the ANZCTR are invited to provide a Universal Trial Number (UTN)—a unique number which aims to facilitate the unambiguous identification of clinical trials registered in Primary Registries in the WHO Registry Network. Obtaining a UTN is not mandatory for registration in the ANZCTR. ANZCTR trials that provide a UTN are displayed on the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal in addition to the ANZCTR website.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
In accordance with the University of Sydney’s (sponsor) ethical procedures, this research did not include human research participants and therefore human research ethics approval was not required
We obtained permission from the ANZCTR to conduct this research. No human research participants were involved in this study, and therefore informed consent was not required.
Research involving human participants
No human data were included in this analysis.
- 1.Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf.
- 5.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. (2018). Statistics to the end of January 2018. http://www.anzctr.org.au/docs/Monthly%20Website%20Reporting_Statistics.pdf?t=139.
- 6.Vodicka, E., Kim, K., Devine, E. B., Gnanasakthy, A., Scoggins, J. F., & Patrick, D. L. (2015). Inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in registered clinical trials: Evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov (2007–2013). Contemporary Clinical Trials, 43, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.04.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. ANZCTR data field explanation. 2017.Google Scholar
- 11.ePROVIDE., P. R. O. Q. O. L. I. D. (2018). https://www.eprovide.mapi-trust.org/about/about-proqolid#about_part_110356. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.
- 12.Grid-Enabled Measures Database. About GEM 2017 https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/About.aspx?cat=5. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.
- 13.Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., Lenderking, W. R., Moinpour, C. M., Basch, E., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50(12), 1060–1070.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.European Medicines Agency. (2016). Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man: The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. London: European Medicines Agency.Google Scholar
- 20.Cherny, N. I., Sullivan, R., Dafni, U., Kerst, J. M., Sobrero, A., Zielinski, C., et al. (2015). A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Annals of Oncology, 26(8), 1547–1573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.Schnipper, L. E., Davidson, N. E., Wollins, D. S., Blayney, D. W., Dicker, A. P., Ganz, P. A., et al. (2016). Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: Revisions and reflections in response to comments received. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(24), 2925–2934.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar