Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2026
Stakeholder Perspectives on Potential Open-Label Bias in Patient-Reported Outcome Results From Cancer Clinical Trials: Evidence From the IMPROvE Project.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Efficace Fabio, Krepper Daniela, Sparano Francesco, Aaronson Neil K, Cella David, Collins Gary S, Giesinger Johannes M, Chakraborty Rajshekhar, Di Maio Massimo, Anota Amelie
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To explore stakeholder perspectives related to open-label bias in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from cancer randomized controlled trials and identify possible risk factors for such bias. This study represents the first phase of the Importance of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Evaluating the Effects of Therapy Masking (IMPROvE) project, an international initiative investigating the impact of trial design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) on PRO results.
METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 stakeholders, including PRO experts (researchers, oncologists, and statisticians) and patients from 7 countries. An interview guide addressed perceptions, experiences, and views on potential contributors of open-label bias in PROs. Thematic content analysis was used to identify recurrent themes and patterns. Findings were complemented with a targeted narrative literature review.
RESULTS: Stakeholders expressed divergent views regarding the presence and magnitude of open-label bias in PROs. Patient expectations, treatment type, disease stage, and clinician-patient interactions were frequently mentioned as potential contributors to such bias. Although experts often framed open-label bias as a methodological concern, patients highlighted experiential and relational aspects. Both groups acknowledged that robust trial methodology and validated PRO instruments may mitigate risks. Literature findings were consistent with these perspectives, highlighting careful methodological planning and transparent reporting practices as critical to mitigate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insights into stakeholder perspectives on potential open-label bias in PROs from cancer randomized controlled trials, highlighting both methodological and experiential dimensions. These exploratory findings may inform future evidence generation and guide the development of an "open-label bias PRO checklist."
METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 stakeholders, including PRO experts (researchers, oncologists, and statisticians) and patients from 7 countries. An interview guide addressed perceptions, experiences, and views on potential contributors of open-label bias in PROs. Thematic content analysis was used to identify recurrent themes and patterns. Findings were complemented with a targeted narrative literature review.
RESULTS: Stakeholders expressed divergent views regarding the presence and magnitude of open-label bias in PROs. Patient expectations, treatment type, disease stage, and clinician-patient interactions were frequently mentioned as potential contributors to such bias. Although experts often framed open-label bias as a methodological concern, patients highlighted experiential and relational aspects. Both groups acknowledged that robust trial methodology and validated PRO instruments may mitigate risks. Literature findings were consistent with these perspectives, highlighting careful methodological planning and transparent reporting practices as critical to mitigate risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insights into stakeholder perspectives on potential open-label bias in PROs from cancer randomized controlled trials, highlighting both methodological and experiential dimensions. These exploratory findings may inform future evidence generation and guide the development of an "open-label bias PRO checklist."