Table 1.
Gill 1994 | Staquet 1996 | Kong 1997 | Revicki 2000 | Lee 2000 | Sprangers 2002 | Movsas 2003 | Efficace 2003 | Wiklund 2004 | Abbott 2005 | Revicki 2005 | Tanvetyanon 2007 | Joly 2007 | Street 2009 | Temple 2009 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
General | |||||||||||||||
Study patient characteristics described | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||
Title-explicit as to the RCT incorporating HRQL | Y | ||||||||||||||
HRQL is a stated outcome in abstract | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Introduction includes summary of the previous HRQL research | Y | ||||||||||||||
QOL is stated as a outcome/primary or secondary outcome | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Flow diagram provided/subject flow discussed | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||||
Instrument and admin | |||||||||||||||
Rationale for HRQL instrument provided | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
Was the instrument appropriate for the stated study hypothesis? | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Evidence of instrument reliability | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||
Evidence of instrument validity | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||
Adequacy of domains covered/domains of interest explicit | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||
Instrument administration reported | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||
Instrument responsiveness to change | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||
Copy of instrument included if not published previously | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Citation for HRQL instrument provided | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||
Analysis and reporting | |||||||||||||||
HRQL hypothesis stated | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
Timing of HRQL measurement appropriate for clinical context | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
Clinical rationale for sample size | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||||
Power/sample size calculation | Y | Y | Y | Y* | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
Multiple QOL items adjustment | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||
Missing data documented | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||
Reasons for missing data discussed | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||
Statistical approaches taken to dealing with missing data | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||
Baseline QOL status described | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||
All HRQL data provided not just the statistically significant data | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||
Use of appropriate statistical analysis/test of stat. sig. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||
Post hoc analyses identified as such | Y | ||||||||||||||
Survival difference accounted for | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Clinical significance addressed/MID stated | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ||||
Generalizability of the results described | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Mode of administration stated/methods of collecting data | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||||
Blinding of investigators and participants | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Other | |||||||||||||||
Procedures for quality control | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |||||||||
Compliance monitoring | Y | Y | Y | ||||||||||||
Pilot testing | Y | ||||||||||||||
Authors provide composite score for quality of life | Y | ||||||||||||||
Were patients asked to provide their own global rating for QOL? | Y | ||||||||||||||
Was overall quality of life distinguished from HRQOL? | Y | ||||||||||||||
Were patients invited to supplement the items in the instrument? | Y | ||||||||||||||
Were the items incorporated into the final rating? | Y | ||||||||||||||
Were patients asked which items were personally important? | Y | Y | |||||||||||||
Were these important ratings incorporated into the final rating? | Y | ||||||||||||||
Designated symptom or QOL domain as a primary endpoint | Y | ||||||||||||||
Proportion achieving a pre-defined palliative response | Y | ||||||||||||||
Estimates of the duration of palliative response | Y | ||||||||||||||
Discussion of the limitations of the results | Y |
* When HRQL primary endpoint