IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i4d10.1007_s40271-024-00689-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Minna Grahvendy

    (Princess Alexandra Hospital, Queensland Health
    The University of Queensland)

  • Bena Brown

    (Islander Primary Health Care, Metro South Health
    The University of Queensland)

  • Laurelie R. Wishart

    (The University of Queensland
    Centre for Functioning and Health Research, Metro South Health
    Griffith University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Minna Grahvendy & Bena Brown & Laurelie R. Wishart, 2024. "Adverse Event Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials: Incorporating Patient-Reported Methods. A Systematic Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(4), pages 335-347, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00689-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00689-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00689-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-024-00689-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00689-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.