Patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints are increasingly considered for inclusion in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with haematological malignancies. The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the quality of PRO reporting across these RCTs. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed for English language articles published between Jan 1, 2014, and Jan 31, 2019. Eligible articles were RCTs of cancer-directed therapy in adult patients with haematological malignancies that reported on PRO measures in the primary publication or in a subsequent publication, with a comparison of PROs among treatment groups. A total of 3678 records were assessed, and 71 RCTs, enrolling 24 701 patients, were included in our systematic review. Most RCTs (n=65 [92%]) had PRO measures as a secondary or exploratory endpoint. A PRO hypothesis and relevant PRO domains were specified in 36 (51%) RCTs. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data were documented in 26 (37%) RCTs. Quality of PRO reporting was higher in RCTs citing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement-PRO extension (CONSORT-PRO) than in those not citing this checklist, as evidenced by the International Society for Quality of Life Research score (median score in studies citing the CONSORT-PRO extension [n=4] was 89 [IQR 75-94] vs 61 [44-78] in those not citing this extension). Independent factors significantly associated with higher reporting included having PROs as a primary endpoint (p=0·008) and the presence of a subsequent publication on PROs (p<0·0001). International guidelines for designing, reporting, and analysing PRO data are now available to further improve overall study quality. Our findings can help investigators to focus on key aspects most in need of attention when reporting PROs in future trials of haematological malignancies.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.