A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer
(2023) In European Urology Open Science 48. p.1-11- Abstract
Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in... (More)
Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.
(Less)
- author
- organization
- publishing date
- 2023-02
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Barriers, Facilitators, Oncology, Patient decision-making, Renal cell carcinoma, Treatment choice, Treatment selection
- in
- European Urology Open Science
- volume
- 48
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Elsevier
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85144045849
- pmid:36578462
- ISSN
- 2666-1691
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.014
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 2de5fb48-5c0e-4521-bfb1-ec92739620c0
- date added to LUP
- 2023-02-02 12:16:24
- date last changed
- 2024-12-13 06:48:13
@article{2de5fb48-5c0e-4521-bfb1-ec92739620c0,
abstract = {{<p>Context: Outcomes in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are reported inconsistently, with variability in definitions and measurement. Hence, it is difficult to compare intervention effectiveness and synthesise outcomes for systematic reviews and to create clinical practice guidelines. This uncertainty in the evidence makes it difficult to guide patient-clinician decision-making. One solution is a core outcome set (COS): an agreed minimum set of outcomes. Objective: To describe outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement heterogeneity as the first stage in co-creating a COS for localised renal cancer. Evidence acquisition: We systematically reviewed outcome reporting heterogeneity in effectiveness trials and observational studies in localised RCC. In total, 2822 studies (randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews) up to June 2020 meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently by two reviewers; in cases of disagreement, a third reviewer arbitrated. Data extractions were double-checked. Evidence synthesis: We included 149 studies and found that there was inconsistency in which outcomes were reported across studies and variability in the definitions used for outcomes that were conceptually the same. We structured our analysis using the outcome classification taxonomy proposed by Dodd et al. Outcomes linked to adverse events (eg, bleeding, outcomes linked to surgery) and renal injury outcomes (reduced renal function) were reported most commonly. Outcomes related to deaths from any cause and from cancer were reported in 44% and 25% of studies, respectively, although the time point for measurement and the analysis methods were inconsistent. Outcomes linked to life impact (eg, global quality of life) were reported least often. Clinician-reported outcomes are more frequently reported than patient-reported outcomes in the renal cancer literature. Conclusions: This systematic review underscores the heterogeneity of outcome reporting, definitions, and measurement in research on localised renal cancer. It catalogues the variety of outcomes and serves as a first step towards the development of a COS for localised renal cancer. Patient summary: We reviewed studies on localised kidney cancer and found that multiple terms and definitions have been used to describe outcomes. These are not defined consistently, and often not defined at all. Our review is the first phase in developing a core outcome set to allow better comparisons of studies to improve medical care.</p>}},
author = {{Beyer, Katharina and Widdershoven, Christiaan and Wintner, Lisa M. and Dabestani, Saeed and Marconi, Lorenzo and Moss, Charlotte and Kinsella, Netty and Yuan, Yuhong and Giles, Rachel H. and Barod, Ravi and Van Hemelrijck, Mieke and Bex, Axel and Zondervan, Patricia and MacLennan, Steven}},
issn = {{2666-1691}},
keywords = {{Barriers; Facilitators; Oncology; Patient decision-making; Renal cell carcinoma; Treatment choice; Treatment selection}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{1--11}},
publisher = {{Elsevier}},
series = {{European Urology Open Science}},
title = {{A Systematic Review of Heterogeneity in Outcome Definition and Reporting in Localised Renal Cancer}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.014}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.euros.2022.11.014}},
volume = {{48}},
year = {{2023}},
}