Cited by 476Cancer survivorship and careHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Recommendations for Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research in Adult Oncology

Basch, Ethan, Abernethy, Amy P., Mullins, C. Daniel, Reeve, Bryce B., Smith, Mary Lou, Coons, Stephen Joel, Sloan, Jeff, Wenzel, Keith +7 more·2012·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2012.42.5967

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., Sloan, J., Wenzel, K., Chauhan, C., Eppard, W., Frank, E. S., Lipscomb, J., Raymond, S. A., Spencer, M., & Tunis, S.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2012-12-01
Volume
30
Issue
34
Pages
4249-4255
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2087202287
Cited by
476
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 4
FWCI
19.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
patient-reported outcomes, comparative effectiveness research, adult oncology, health-related quality of life, symptom assessment, EORTC QLQ-C30, facts, PRO-CTCAE, PROMIS, electronic data collection, missing data, responder analysis, patient experience
MeSH terms
Adult, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Research Design, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Comparative Effectiveness Research, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review