Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials

References

• Dunlap JJ, Patterson S. Peptic ulcer disease. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2019;42(5):451–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peptic ulcer. [Internet]. 2014; [cited 2021 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.health.harvard.edu/digestive-health/peptic-ulcer-overview
   Google Scholar
• Lu C-L, Chang -S-S, Wang -S-S, et al. Silent peptic ulcer disease: frequency, factors leading to “silence,” and implications regarding the pathogenesis of visceral symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(1):34–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang JM, Seo PJ, Kim N, et al. Analysis of direct medical care costs of peptic ulcer disease in a Korean tertiary medical center. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2012;47(1):36–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, et al. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion. 2011;84(2):102–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawley J, Frank L, Joshua-Gotlib S, et al. Measuring change in quality of life in response to Helicobacter pylori eradication in peptic ulcer disease: the QOLRAD. Dig Dis Sci. 2001;46(3):571–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frevel M, Daake H, Janisch HD, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori with pantoprazole and two antibiotics: a comparison of two short-term regimens. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2000;14(9):1151–1157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glise H, Hallerbäck B, Johansson B. Quality of life assessments in the evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux and peptic ulcer disease before, during and after treatment. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1995;208:133–135.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jones R, Patrikios T. The effectiveness of esomeprazole 40 mg in patients with persistent symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease following treatment with a full dose proton pump inhibitor. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62(12):1844–1850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Elorrio E, Aziz S. The need for standardized reporting of research findings in the field of quality of care. Int J Qual Health Care [Internet]. 2021;33. [cited 2021 Jun 23]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article-pdf/33/1/mzab040/36759452/mzab040.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Efficace F, Feuerstein M, Fayers P, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of prostate cancer: methodological quality and impact on clinical decision making. Eur Urol. 2014;66(3):416–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedlander M, Mercieca-Bebber RL, King MT. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in ovarian cancer clinical trials-lost opportunities and lessons learned. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(Suppl 1):i66–i71.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brundage M, Bass B, Davidson J, et al. Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchers. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(5):653–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4):139–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JGS, editor. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 510. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Hillman C, Vassar M, Wise A, et al. Peptic ulcer disease (July 2021); [cited 2021 Jul 21]. Available from: https://osf.io/358hb/
   Google Scholar
• Mercieca-Bebber R, Rouette J, Calvert M, et al. Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(6):1427–1437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman DG, et al. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA. 2013;309(8):814–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane Training. [Internet]. Youtube. [cited 2021 Jul 17]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoWzvKR8RPHG07PPeqBiibA
   Google Scholar
• Risk of bias tools - current version of RoB 2 [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 21]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/current-version-of-rob-2?authuser=0
   Google Scholar
• Risk of bias tools - RoB 2 for cluster-randomized trials. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 21]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool/rob-2-for-cluster-randomized-trials?authuser=0
   Google Scholar
• Harlow LL. On scientific research: the role of statistical modeling and hypothesis testing. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2010;9(2):4.
   Google Scholar
• Bang AL, Krogh P, Ludvigsen M, et al. The role of hypothesis in constructive design research. Proceedings of The Art of Research IV. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Bell ML, Fiero M, Horton NJ, et al. Handling missing data in RCTs; a review of the top medical journals. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):118.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fairclough DL, Peterson HF, Cella D, et al. Comparison of several model-based methods for analysing incomplete quality of life data in cancer clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17(5–7):781–796.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough DL, Peterson HF, Chang V. Why are missing quality of life data a problem in clinical trials of cancer therapy? Stat Med. 1998;17(5–7):667–677.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen H, Butow P, Dhillon H, et al. A review of the barriers to using Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiat Sci. 2021;68:186–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNair AGK, Macefield RC, Blencowe NS, et al. “Trial exegesis”: methods for synthesizing clinical and Patient reported outcome (PRO) data in trials to inform clinical practice. A systematic review. PLoS One. 2016;11(8):e0160998.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie D. CONSORT revised–improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285(15):2006–2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heaney A, Collins JS, Watson RG, et al. A prospective randomised trial of a “test and treat” policy versus endoscopy based management in young Helicobacter pylori positive patients with ulcer-like dyspepsia, referred to a hospital clinic. Gut. 1999;45(2):186–190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Steen JT, Ter Riet G, van den Bogert CA, et al. Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework. F1000 Res. 2019;8:280.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vera-Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Krzyzanowska MK, et al. Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2016;61:29–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerhard T. Bias: considerations for research practice. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65(22):2159–2168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradley SH, DeVito NJ, Lloyd KE, et al. Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps. J R Soc Med. 2020;113(11):433–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;l4898. DOI:10.1136/bmj.l4898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapter 5: collecting data. [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 23]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-05
   Google Scholar
• Bonetto S, Gruden G, Beccuti G, et al. Management of dyspepsia and gastroparesis in patients with diabetes. A clinical point of view in the year 2021. J Clin Med Res. [Internet]. 2021;10. DOI:10.3390/jcm10061313.
   Google Scholar