Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews

Published:2022-03-26 Issue:10 Volume:31 Page:2939-2957
ISSN:0962-9343
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
language:en
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res

Author:

Mercieca-Bebber Rebecca^ORCID,Aiyegbusi Olalekan Lee^ORCID,King Madeleine T.^ORCID,Brundage Michael,Snyder Claire^ORCID,Calvert Melanie^ORCID

Abstract

AbstractThis review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO’s release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

Funder

University of Sydney

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11136-022-03119-w.pdf

Reference46 articles.

1. Brundage, M., Bass, B., Davidson, J., Queenan, J., Bezjak, A., Ringash, J., Wilkinson, A., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (2011). Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: Implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Quality of Life Research, 20(5), 653–664.

2. Joly, F., Vardy, J., Pintilie, M., & Tannock, I. F. (2007). Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancer. Annals of Oncology, 18(12), 1935–1942.

3. Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., Michie, S., Moher, D., & Wager, E. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.