Systematic Review of Use of Patient Reported Outcomes in Interventional Radiology.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
INTRODUCTION: A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is any outcome reported directly by the patient, in contradistinction to a clinician-reported outcomes, which have dominated clinical research. This systematic review evaluates the ways in which PROs have been utilized in the interventional radiology literature. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and was designed and conducted by a medical librarian. Studies were screened for inclusion by two independent members, with a third member as a conflict resolver. The data was extracted from each study in a consistent and structured manner. RESULTS: 354 studies met criteria for full-text analysis. 218/354 (62%) used a prospective design and most frequently provided Level III (249/354, 70%) or Level I (68/354, 19%) evidence. The manner in which PROs were obtained was reported in 125/354 (35%) of studies. Questionnaire response rate was documented in 51/354 (14%) studies while questionnaire completion rate was documented in 49/354 (14%) studies. 281/354 (79%) studies used at least one independently validated questionnaire. The disease domains most commonly assessed via PRO were women's health (62/354, 18%) and men's health (60/354, 17%). DISCUSSION: Wider development, validation, and systematic use of PROs in IR would enable more informed patient-centered decision making. A greater focus on PROs in clinical trials would elucidate expected outcomes from the patient's perspective, simplifying comparisons with therapeutic alternatives. In order to produce more convincing evidence, trials must apply validated PROs rigorously and report possible confounding factors consistently.
