Adverse Event Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials: Incorporating Patient-Reported Methods. A Systematic Scoping Review

Minna Grahvendy (), Bena Brown () and Laurelie R. Wishart ()
Additional contact information
Minna Grahvendy: Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queensland Health
Bena Brown: Islander Primary Health Care, Metro South Health
Laurelie R. Wishart: The University of Queensland

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2024, vol. 17, issue 4, No 1, 335-347

Abstract: Abstract Background and objective The history of clinical trials is fraught with unethical practices. Since 1945, robust frameworks have evolved to standardise the collection and reporting of safety data, most notably, the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) from the National Cancer Institute; used by investigators to report side effects experienced by participants. As medicine moves into the patient-centred model, interest has been growing to collect data on adverse events directly from participants (patient-reported adverse events). The aim of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the inclusion of patient-reported adverse event data within safety/tolerability analyses and explore the collection and reporting of patient-reported adverse event data. Methods and results A database search was undertaken and the Covidence platform was used to manage the review; results were analysed descriptively. Sixty-eight studies were included in the analysis. An increase in the number of studies that incorporate patient-reported adverse event data was seen by year. Seventy instruments were used for the collection of patient-reported adverse event data with recall period, mode, frequency and site of administration varying across studies; the duration of data collection ranged from 28 days to 6 years. Frequently, information on these details was omitted from publications. The number of instruments used by studies to collect patient-reported adverse event data ranged from one to seven instruments. Conclusions Despite growing calls for the inclusion of patient-reported adverse events, this has not yet translated into published reports. The collection and reporting of these data were variable and conducted using instruments that were not designed for purpose. To address these inconsistencies, standardisation of data collection and reporting using a purpose-built validated instrument is required.

Date: 2024
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00689-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00689-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00689-4

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().