Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Julie Rouette; Melanie Calvert; Madeleine T King; Lori McLeod; Patricia Holch; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage; International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce

doi:10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Julie Rouette, Melanie Calvert, Madeleine T King, Lori McLeod, Patricia Holch, Michael J Palmer, Michael Brundage, International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce

Applied Health Research

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

270 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.

METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.

RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R (2) = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.

CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.

Original language	English
Number of pages	11
Journal	Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
Early online date	7 Feb 2017
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 7 Feb 2017

Access to Document

10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

Mercieca-Bebber_et_al_Preliminary_evidence_on_the_uptake_Quality_of_life_research
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6 Checked 13/3/2017
Accepted author manuscript, 246 KBLicence: None: All rights reserved

Cite this

Mercieca-Bebber, R., Rouette, J., Calvert, M., King, M. T., McLeod, L., Holch, P., Palmer, M. J., Brundage, M., & International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce (2017). Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

@article{d41705fb030b4557b61d5bb4b0cf33c3,

title = "Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension",

abstract = "PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R (2) = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.",

author = "Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber and Julie Rouette and Melanie Calvert and King, {Madeleine T} and Lori McLeod and Patricia Holch and Palmer, {Michael J} and Michael Brundage and {International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce}",

year = "2017",

month = feb,

day = "7",

doi = "10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6",

language = "English",

journal = "Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation",

issn = "0962-9343",

publisher = "Springer",

}

Mercieca-Bebber, R, Rouette, J, Calvert, M, King, MT, McLeod, L, Holch, P, Palmer, MJ, Brundage, M & International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce 2017, 'Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension', Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

AU - Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca

AU - Rouette, Julie

AU - Calvert, Melanie

AU - King, Madeleine T

AU - McLeod, Lori

AU - Holch, Patricia

AU - Palmer, Michael J

AU - Brundage, Michael

AU - International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Best Practice for PROs—Reporting Taskforce

PY - 2017/2/7

Y1 - 2017/2/7

N2 - PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R (2) = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.

AB - PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R (2) = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.

U2 - 10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

DO - 10.1007/s11136-017-1508-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 28168602

SN - 0962-9343

JO - Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation

JF - Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation

ER -

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this