Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35347521›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews.

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Madeleine T King, Michael Brundage, Claire Snyder, Melanie Calvert

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

12citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it

4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

Evaluating patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy for liver cancer: a scoping review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026
Pooled it
Patient-reported outcome domains in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials and association with survival outcomes.Annals of hematology · 2024
Pooled it
The impact of current therapeutic options on the health-related quality of life of patients with relapse/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review of clinical studies.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2024
Pooled it
Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2022
Pooled it
Use and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a scoping review.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026
Article
A Short Primer on the Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Studies.Foot & ankle orthopaedics · 2025
Article
Introduction to "PRISMA-COSMIN for outcome measurement instruments 2024".Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
Article
Toward a more patient-centered drug development process in clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Practical considerations from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS).HemaSphere · 2024
Review
Reporting and influencing factors of patient-reported outcomes in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study protocol.BMJ open · 2024
Article
Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.PeerJ · 2024
Article
Analysis of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Phase III RCTs of Advanced Genitourinary Tumors.Cancers · 2023
Article
Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review.Cancers · 2023
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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Rebecca Mercieca-BebberNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. rebecca.mercieca@sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3708-9099

Olalekan Lee AiyegbusiCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9122-8251

Madeleine T KingSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-2887

Michael BrundageCancer Care and Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Claire SnyderJohns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8952-4561

Melanie CalvertCentre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, and Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1856-837X

The University of Sydney · AUJohns Hopkins University · USQueen's University · CAUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

Indexed as

Research DesignTranslational Science, BiomedicalChecklistHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeCONSORT-PROPatient-reported outcomesQuality of lifeReportingResearch methodologyResearch waste

Identifiers

PMID35347521

DOI10.1007/s11136-022-03119-w

PMCPMC9470606

OpenAlexW4221024531

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.