Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis
- PMID: 35134080
- PMCID: PMC8824332
- DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003896
Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis
Abstract
Background: Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered. Engagement of patients and members of the public in selecting the primary trial outcome and determining the target difference can better ensure that the trial is designed to inform the decisions of those who ultimately stand to benefit. However, to the best of our knowledge, the use and reporting of PROs and patient and public engagement in pragmatic trials have not been described. The objectives of this study were to review a sample of pragmatic trials to describe (1) the prevalence of reporting patient and public engagement; (2) the prevalence and types of PROs used; (3) how its use varies across trial characteristics; and (4) how sample sizes and target differences are determined for trials with primary PROs.
Methods and findings: This was a methodological review of primary reports of pragmatic trials. We used a published electronic search filter in MEDLINE to identify pragmatic trials, published in English between January 1, 2014 and April 3, 2019; we identified the subset that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Trial descriptors were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov; information about PROs and sample size calculations were extracted from the manuscript. Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between trial characteristics and use of PROs. Among 4,337 identified primary trial reports, 1,988 were registered in CT.gov, of which 415 were explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Use of patient and public engagement was identified in 39 (9.4%). PROs were measured in 235 (56.6%): 144 (34.7%) used PROs as primary outcomes and 91 (21.9%) as only secondary outcomes. Primary PROs were symptoms (64; 44%), health behaviors (36; 25.0%), quality of life (17; 11.8%), functional status (16; 11.1%), and patient experience (10; 6.9%). Trial characteristics with lower prevalence of use of PROs included being conducted exclusively in children or adults over age 65 years, cluster randomization, recruitment in low- and middle-income countries, and primary purpose of prevention; trials conducted in Europe had the highest prevalence of PROs. For the 144 trials with a primary PRO, 117 (81.3%) reported a sample size calculation for that outcome; of these, 71 (60.7%) justified the choice of target difference, most commonly, using estimates from pilot studies (31; 26.5%), standardized effect sizes (20; 17.1%), or evidence reviews (16; 13.7%); patient or stakeholder opinions were used to justify the target difference in 8 (6.8%). Limitations of this study are the need for trials to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, which may have reduced generalizability, and extracting information only from the primary trial report.
Conclusions: In this study, we observed that pragmatic trials rarely report patient and public engagement and do not commonly use PROs as primary outcomes. When provided, target differences are often not justified and rarely informed by patients and stakeholders. Research funders, scientific journals, and institutions should support trialists to incorporate patient engagement to fulfill the mandate of pragmatic trials to be patient centered.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.Clin Trials. 2020 Jun;17(3):253-263. doi: 10.1177/1740774519896799. Epub 2020 May 5. Clin Trials. 2020. PMID: 32367741 Review.
-
Reporting of and explanations for under-recruitment and over-recruitment in pragmatic trials: a secondary analysis of a database of primary trial reports published from 2014 to 2019.BMJ Open. 2022 Dec 9;12(12):e067656. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067656. BMJ Open. 2022. PMID: 36600344 Free PMC article.
-
Methodological challenges in pragmatic trials in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: Opportunities for improvement.Clin Trials. 2022 Feb;19(1):86-96. doi: 10.1177/17407745211046672. Epub 2021 Nov 29. Clin Trials. 2022. PMID: 34841910 Free PMC article.
-
A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing.J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Sep;137:45-57. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.021. Epub 2021 Mar 28. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021. PMID: 33789151 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
"The power imbalance was blown out the window": developing and implementing creative workshops to enhance communication of statistics in patient and public involvement in clinical trials.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Mar 20;10(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00560-8. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 38509624 Free PMC article.
-
Involving patients and the public In sTatistIcal Analysis pLans (INITIAL): A delphi survey.PLoS One. 2023 Dec 14;18(12):e0292257. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292257. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023. PMID: 38096223 Free PMC article.
-
Selecting outcomes for pragmatic clinical trials in dementia care: The IMPACT Collaboratory iLibrary.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024 Feb;72(2):529-535. doi: 10.1111/jgs.18644. Epub 2023 Nov 2. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2024. PMID: 37916447
-
Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials: online survey of corresponding authors of published trials.CMAJ Open. 2023 Sep 19;11(5):E826-E837. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20220198. Print 2023 Sep-Oct. CMAJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37726115 Free PMC article.
-
Observed intervention effects for mortality in randomised clinical trials: a methodological study protocol.BMJ Open. 2023 Jun 14;13(6):e072550. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072550. BMJ Open. 2023. PMID: 37316319 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, Donnan P, Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26519790. [cited 2021 Feb 17]. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2147 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al.. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2003;6:522–31. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous