Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials
by
Crossnohere, Norah L.
, Reeve, Bryce B.
, King, Madeleine
, Brundage, Michael
, Calvert, Melanie J.
, Wu, Albert W.
, Thorner, Elissa
, Snyder, Claire
in
Clinical outcomes
/ Clinical trials
/ Clinical Trials as Topic
/ Consortia
/ Content analysis
/ Humans
/ Medicine
/ Medicine & Public Health
/ Patient Reported Outcome Measures
/ Public Health
/ Quality of life
/ Quality of Life - psychology
/ Quality of Life Research
/ REVIEW
/ Sociology
2021
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials
by
Crossnohere, Norah L.
, Reeve, Bryce B.
, King, Madeleine
, Brundage, Michael
, Calvert, Melanie J.
, Wu, Albert W.
, Thorner, Elissa
, Snyder, Claire
in
Clinical outcomes
/ Clinical trials
/ Clinical Trials as Topic
/ Consortia
/ Content analysis
/ Humans
/ Medicine
/ Medicine & Public Health
/ Patient Reported Outcome Measures
/ Public Health
/ Quality of life
/ Quality of Life - psychology
/ Quality of Life Research
/ REVIEW
/ Sociology
2021
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials
by
Crossnohere, Norah L.
, Reeve, Bryce B.
, King, Madeleine
, Brundage, Michael
, Calvert, Melanie J.
, Wu, Albert W.
, Thorner, Elissa
, Snyder, Claire
in
Clinical outcomes
/ Clinical trials
/ Clinical Trials as Topic
/ Consortia
/ Content analysis
/ Humans
/ Medicine
/ Medicine & Public Health
/ Patient Reported Outcome Measures
/ Public Health
/ Quality of life
/ Quality of Life - psychology
/ Quality of Life Research
/ REVIEW
/ Sociology
2021
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials
Journal Article
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials
2021
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Purpose
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients’ perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations.
Methods
We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research.
Results
Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria.
Conclusion
The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium’s ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.
Publisher
Springer Science + Business Media,Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature B.V
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.