» Articles » PMID: 25128043

PRO Data Collection in Clinical Trials Using Mixed Modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force

Overview
Journal Value Health
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2014 Aug 17
PMID 25128043
Citations 34
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective of this report was to address the use and mixing of data collection modes within and between trials in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) end points are intended to be used to support medical product labeling. The report first addresses the factors that should be considered when selecting a mode or modes of PRO data collection in a clinical trial, which is often when mixing is first considered. Next, a summary of how to "faithfully" migrate instruments is presented followed by a section on qualitative and quantitative study designs used to evaluate measurement equivalence of the new and original modes of data collection. Finally, the report discusses a number of issues that must be taken into account when mixing modes is deemed necessary or unavoidable within or between trials, including considerations of the risk of mixing at different levels within a clinical trial program and mixing between different types of platforms. In the absence of documented evidence of measurement equivalence, it is strongly recommended that a quantitative equivalence study be conducted before mixing modes in a trial to ensure that sufficient equivalence can be demonstrated to have confidence in pooling PRO data collected by the different modes. However, we also strongly discourage the mixing of paper and electronic field-based instruments and suggest that mixing of electronic modes be considered for clinical trials and only after equivalence has been established. If proceeding with mixing modes, it is important to implement data collection carefully in the trial itself in a planned manner at the country level or higher and minimize ad hoc mixing by sites or individual subjects. Finally, when mixing occurs, it must be addressed in the statistical analysis plan for the trial and the ability to pool the data must be evaluated to then evaluate treatment effects with mixed modes data. A successful mixed modes trial requires a "faithful migration," measurement equivalence established between modes, and carefully planned implementation to minimize the risk of increased measurement error impacting the power of the trial to detect a treatment effect.

Citing Articles

Good Equivalence Between Electronic and Paper Versions of the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile 2 and the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing: A Mixed Methods Study.

Lund-Tonnesen M, Oggesen B, Lauridsen S, Fonnes S, Rosenberg J Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77825.

PMID: 39991421 PMC: 11844233. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77825.


Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review.

Lehmann J, Krepper D, Pe M, Kulis D, Giesinger J, Sztankay M BMJ Open. 2024; 14(9):e084935.

PMID: 39260865 PMC: 11409248. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084935.


Measurement of changes to the menstrual cycle: A transdisciplinary systematic review evaluating measure quality and utility for clinical trials.

Mackenzie A, Chung S, Hoppes E, Mickler A, Cartwright A PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0306491.

PMID: 39052601 PMC: 11271926. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306491.


Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric validation of the Malay version of the Assessment of Quality of Life-6 Dimensions (Malay-AQoL-6D) instrument among Malaysians living with chronic heart failure.

Tan Y, Ong S, Goh S, Chen G, Yong V, Khor W J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2024; 8(1):79.

PMID: 39052204 PMC: 11272755. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-024-00763-3.


Development and validation of a quality of life and treatment satisfaction measure in canine osteoarthritis.

Gildea E, Scales-Theobald E, Thompson J, Cook A, Forde K, Skingley G Front Vet Sci. 2024; 11:1377019.

PMID: 38764853 PMC: 11100416. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1377019.