• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Duke University Suggests Strategy for Supporting Patient Reported Outcomes

Duke University Suggests Strategy for Supporting Patient Reported Outcomes

August 9, 2021

Clinical trials considering using patient reported outcome (PRO) measures should develop “validity arguments” to support their use, according to a recent paper published by Duke University researchers and others.

Sponsors should build a publicly accessible repository of validity arguments, or evidence-based arguments for including PRO measures in a trial that resemble evidence in a court case. By doing that, a greater consensus can be reached on what evidence is truly needed to justify their use in clinical research, says the paper, recently published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

Context is critical when determining how much evidence is necessary to justify including a PRO measure, the researchers found. For that reason, constructing evidence-based arguments can help to support inclusion and build up a public repository of validity arguments over time.

The basic premise of a validity argument is providing “a compelling rationale explaining the interpretation and use of a specific patient-reported outcome measure,” the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) explained.

“The decision that a PRO measure is suitable for a proposed interpretation and use would be made by evaluating the logic, coherence and quality of evidentiary support for the validity argument,” DCRI said.

As PRO measures are employed more often for common conditions like heart failure, a precedent may form for expectations on their inclusion in trials and labeling. Similarly, for rare conditions, building up publicly accessible documentation on context and regulatory acceptance of PRO measure evidence will offer clarity in the future, the researchers said.

Read the full paper here: https://bit.ly/3AdDl8P.

Upcoming Events

  • 16Feb

    Fundamentals of FDA Inspection Management: Reduce Anxiety, Increase Inspection Success

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • Revamp-360x240.png

    Califf Calls for Major Evidence Generation Revamp, Experts’ Opinions Differ

  • AskTheExpertsGreen-360x240.png

    Ask the Experts: Managing Investigational Products

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Survey Outlines Site Challenges, Successes on Diversity

  • PatientCentricity-360x240.png

    Site Spotlight: DM Clinical Shows Patient Centricity Doesn’t Have to Break the Bank

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing