Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33902699›Full record

SynthesisTrials2021

Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials.

A L Slade, A Retzer, K Ahmed, D Kyte, T Keeley, J Armes, J M Brown, L Calman, A Gavin, A W Glaser and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Validation of the French-Canadian Version of FAME, a Family Engagement Measurement Tool for the Intensive Care Unit.The Canadian journal of nursing research = Revue canadienne de recherche en sciences infirmieres · 2026
    Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

16 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.

A L SladeCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. a.l.slade@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2827-7741
A RetzerCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
K AhmedBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
D KyteCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
T KeeleyPatient Centred Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK.
J ArmesNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
J M BrownClinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
L CalmanNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
A GavinNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
A W GlaserNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
D M GreenfieldNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
A LanceleyNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
R M TaylorNational Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Psychosocial Oncology and Survivorship Clinical Studies Group subgroup: Understanding and measuring the consequences of cancer and its treatment, London, UK.
G VelikovaLeeds Institute of Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
G TurnerCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
M J CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Cancer Research UK · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBBirmingham City University · GBCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit · GBGlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) · GBNIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Macmillan Cancer Support 5592105
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition.

methodsProtocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs.

resultsEighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified.

conclusionsGreater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresClinical Trials as TopicHumansResearch PersonnelPatient-reported outcomes (PROs), Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), Ethnicity, Recruitment, Cross-cultural translation, Clinical trials, Trial protocols, Primary outcomes, Secondary outcomes

Identifiers

PMID33902699
PMCPMC8074490
OpenAlexW3159653035

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.