Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31521149›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2019

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised clinical trials of bladder cancer: an updated systematic review.

Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Francesco Sparano, Debra Josephs, Mirjam Sprangers, Francesco Cottone, Fabio Efficace

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The current use of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 and QLQ-BLM30 questionnaires for the assessment of health-related quality of life in bladder cancer patients: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Health-related quality of life overview after different curative treatment options in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: an umbrella review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Editorial Comment.The Journal of urology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mieke Van HemelrijckKing's College London, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Translational Oncology and Urology Research (TOUR), London, SE1 9RT, UK. Mieke.vanhemelrijck@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7317-0858
Francesco SparanoData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Debra JosephsKing's College London, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Translational Oncology and Urology Research (TOUR), London, SE1 9RT, UK.
Mirjam SprangersDepartment of Medical Psychology, Location AMC, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Francesco CottoneData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.
Fabio EfficaceData Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Disease (GIMEMA), Rome, Italy.

Funding

EORTC Please see manuscript
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite international recommendations of including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), a 2014 review concluded that few RCTs of bladder cancer (BC) report PRO as an outcome. We therefore aimed to update the 2014 review to synthesise current evidence-based knowledge of PROs from RCTs in BC. A secondary objective was to examine whether quality of PRO reporting has improved over time and to provide evidence-based recommendations for future studies in this area.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed/Medline, from April 2014 until June 2018. We included the RCTs identified in the previous review as well as newly published RCTs. Studies were evaluated using a predefined electronic-data extraction form that included information on basic trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendation from the International Society of Quality of Life Research.

resultsSince April 2014 only eight new RCTs for BC included PROs as a secondary outcome. In terms of methodology, only the proportion of RCTs documenting the extent of missing PRO data (75% vs 11.1%, p = 0.03) and the identification of PROs in trial protocols (50% vs 0%, p = 0.015) improved. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data were not reported in most new studies (75%).

conclusionLittle improvement into the uptake and assessment of PRO as an outcome in RCTs for BC has been made during recent years. Given the increase in (immunotherapy) drug trials with a potential for severe adverse events, there is urgent need to adopt the recommendations and standards available for PRO use in bladder cancer RCTs.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladder cancerOutcome measurementPROsQuality of lifeRCT

Identifiers

PMID31521149
PMCPMC6744649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.