The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022
State of the Art of Patient-reported Outcomes in Acromegaly or GH Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
van der Meulen Merel, Zamanipoor Najafabadi Amir H, Broersen Leonie H A, Schoones Jan W, Pereira Alberto M, van Furth Wouter R, Claessen Kim M J A, Biermasz Nienke R
Аннотация
CONTEXT: Insight into the current landscape of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROM) and differences between PROs and conventional biochemical outcomes is pivotal for future implementation of PROs in research and clinical practice. Therefore, in studies among patients with acromegaly and growth hormone deficiency (GHD), we evaluated (1) used PROMs, (2) their validity, (3) quality of PRO reporting, (4) agreement between PROs and biochemical outcomes, and (5) determinants of discrepancies.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched 8 electronic databases for prospective studies describing both PROs and biochemical outcomes in acromegaly and GHD patients. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate determinants.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety studies were included (acromegaly: n = 53; GHD: n = 37). Besides nonvalidated symptom lists (used in 37% of studies), 36 formal PROMs were used [predominantly Acromegaly Quality of Life Questionnaire in acromegaly (43%) and Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults in GHD (43%)]. Reporting of PROs was poor, with a median of 37% to 47% of ISOQOL items being reported per study. Eighteen (34%) acromegaly studies and 12 (32%) GHD studies reported discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, most often improvement in biochemical outcomes without change in PROs.
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies among patients with acromegaly and GHD use a multitude of PROMs, often poorly reported. Since a substantial proportion of studies report discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, PROMs are pivotal in the evaluation of disease activity. Therefore, harmonization of PROs in clinical practice and research by development of core outcome sets is an important unmet need.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched 8 electronic databases for prospective studies describing both PROs and biochemical outcomes in acromegaly and GHD patients. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate determinants.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety studies were included (acromegaly: n = 53; GHD: n = 37). Besides nonvalidated symptom lists (used in 37% of studies), 36 formal PROMs were used [predominantly Acromegaly Quality of Life Questionnaire in acromegaly (43%) and Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults in GHD (43%)]. Reporting of PROs was poor, with a median of 37% to 47% of ISOQOL items being reported per study. Eighteen (34%) acromegaly studies and 12 (32%) GHD studies reported discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, most often improvement in biochemical outcomes without change in PROs.
CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies among patients with acromegaly and GHD use a multitude of PROMs, often poorly reported. Since a substantial proportion of studies report discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, PROMs are pivotal in the evaluation of disease activity. Therefore, harmonization of PROs in clinical practice and research by development of core outcome sets is an important unmet need.