Time filter

Source Type

Niscola P.,Hematology Unit | Tendas A.,Hematology Unit | Giovannini M.,Hematology Unit | Cupelli L.,Hematology Unit | And 10 more authors.
Leukemia Research | Year: 2012

We report descriptive data of a home care (HC) program, throughout a 5-years period (2006-2010), focusing on the reliability and the safety of transfusions at home in 211 patients affected by myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Our results outline the potentially relevant role of a specifically dedicated HC service in the global management of frail MDS patients for which transfusions at home may represent a valuable option to maintain a good quality of life and avoid the possible discomfort due to hospital admissions and outpatient visits. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

Dirven L.,VU University Amsterdam | Taphoorn M.J.B.,VU University Amsterdam | Taphoorn M.J.B.,Medical Center Haaglanden | Reijneveld J.C.,VU University Amsterdam | And 8 more authors.
European Journal of Cancer | Year: 2014

Background: To determine the net clinical benefit of a new treatment strategy, information on both survival and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is required. However, to make an adequately informed decision, PRO evidence should be of sufficiently high quality. Objective: To investigate the methodological quality of PRO reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with brain tumours, and to assess the proportion of studies that should impact clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in several databases covering January 2004 to March 2012. We selected relevant RCTs and retrieved the following data: (1) basic trial demographics and PRO characteristics, (2) quality of PRO reporting and (3) risk of bias. Studies that should impact clinical decision-making based on their methodological robustness were analysed systematically. Results: We identified 14 RCTs, representing over 3000 glioma patients. Only two RCTs (14%) satisfied sufficiently many key methodological criteria to provide high-quality PRO evidence, and should therefore impact clinical decision-making. Important methodological limitations in other studies were lack of reporting of the extent (43%) and reasons (86%) of missing data and statistical approaches to handle this (71%). PRO results were not interpreted in 79% of the studies and clinical significance was not discussed in 86%. Studies with high-quality PRO evidence generally showed lower risk of bias. Conclusions: Investigators involved in brain tumour research should pay special attention to methodological challenges identified in current work. The level of PRO reporting should continue to improve in order to facilitate a critical appraisal of study results. © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Efficace F.,Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit | Feuerstein M.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Fayers P.,University of Aberdeen | Cafaro V.,Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit | And 3 more authors.
European Urology | Year: 2014

Context Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly used to inform patient-centred care as well as clinical and health policy decisions. Objective The main objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of PRO assessment in RCTs of prostate cancer (PCa) and to estimate the likely impact of these studies on clinical decision making. Evidence acquisition A systematic literature search of studies was undertaken on main electronic databases to retrieve articles published between January 2004 and March 2012. RCTs were evaluated on a predetermined extraction form, including (1) basic trial demographics and clinical and PRO characteristics; (2) level of PRO reporting based on the recently published recommendations by the International Society for Quality of Life Research; and (3) bias, assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Studies were systematically analysed to evaluate their relevance for supporting clinical decision making. Evidence synthesis Sixty-five RCTs enrolling a total of 22 071 patients were evaluated, with 31 (48%) in patients with nonmetastatic disease. When a PRO difference between treatments was found, it related in most cases to symptoms only (n = 29, 58%). Although the extent of missing data was generally documented (72% of RCTs), few reported details on statistical handling of this data (18%) and reasons for dropout (35%). Improvements in key methodological aspects over time were found. Thirteen (20%) RCTs were judged as likely to be robust in informing clinical decision making. Higher-quality PRO studies were generally associated with those RCTs that had higher internal validity. Conclusions Including PRO in RCTs of PCa patients is critical for better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches. Marked improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, and it is estimated that at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make critical appraisals of results. Patient summary In this report, we have investigated the methodological quality of PCa trials that have included a PRO assessment. We conclude that including PRO is critical to better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches from the patient's perspective. Also, at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs in PCa have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make a critical appraisal of results. © 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Association of Urology.

Efficace F.,Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit | Fayers P.,University of Aberdeen | Pusic A.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Cemal Y.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | And 7 more authors.
Cancer | Year: 2015

BACKGROUND: The main objectives of this study were to identify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint across a wide range of cancer specialties and to evaluate the completeness of PRO reporting according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. METHODS: RCTs with a PRO endpoint that had been performed across several cancer specialties and published between 2004 and 2013 were considered. Studies were evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including the CONSORT PRO extension and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias of RCTs. Analyses were also conducted by the type of PRO endpoint (primary vs secondary) and by the cancer disease site. RESULTS: A total of 56,696 potentially eligible records were scrutinized, and 557 RCTs with a PRO evaluation, enrolling 254,677 patients overall, were identified. PROs were most frequently used in RCTs of breast (n = 123), lung (n = 85), and colorectal cancer (n = 66). Overall, PROs were secondary endpoints in 421 RCTs (76%). Four of 6 evaluated CONSORT PRO items were documented in less than 50% of the RCTs. The level of reporting was higher in RCTs with a PRO as a primary endpoint. The presence of a supplementary report was the only statistically significant factor associated with greater completeness of reporting for both RCTs with PROs as primary endpoints (β =.19, P =.001) and RCTs with PROs as secondary endpoints (β =.30, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CONSORT PRO extension is equally important across all cancer specialties. Its use can also contribute to revealing the robust PRO design of some studies, which might be obscured by poor outcome reporting. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Feuerstein M.A.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | Jacobs M.,University of Amsterdam | Piciocchi A.,Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit | Bochner B.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center | And 5 more authors.
Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations | Year: 2015

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Results: In total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data. Conclusions: We found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making. © 2015 Elsevier Inc.

Discover hidden collaborations