ISPOR 18th Annual European Congress
Milan, Italy
November, 2015
PMS107
Muscular-skeletal Disorders (including Carpal Tunnel Syndrome)
Patient-Reported Outcomes & Patient Preference Studies (PRO)
Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO)
PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN STUDIES PUBLISHED IN 2014: WHICH TOOLS HAVE BEEN MOST COMMONLY USED IN STUDIES OF MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS?
Martin A
Crystallise Ltd., London, UK
OBJECTIVES: To determine which patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools were used in studies on musculoskeletal diseases published in 2014. METHODS: An evidence surveillance process was established based on a systematic search of PubMed, incorporating all studies published from 2010 and updated weekly, with a final search on 18 May 2015. Abstracts identified by the search that reported quality of life outcomes in musculoskeletal disorders were identified. Articles were included if they reported results or a study protocol from a primary research study or were a systematic review. PRO tools were identified from the abstract alone, where possible. RESULTS: The search identified 1,980 articles published in 2014. Of these, 197 (10%) were in musculoskeletal disorders. The most commonly researched diseases were osteoarthritis (19 articles), rheumatoid arthritis and back pain (14 each), fibromyalgia and fractures (10 each), and ankylosing spondylitis (9). Overall, 160 different PRO or clinician-reported instruments were cited in the 197 abstracts, with 93 articles citing more than one tool. Pain instruments were most commonly used (82 articles included either VAS or unspecified pain measurement). Utility measurement was made in 36 studies, with SF-36 used twice as often as either SF-12 or EQ-5D. PROs most commonly cited included WOMAC (13 articles), DASH (9), KOOS (9), HAQ (8), WHOQOL-BREF (6), FIQ and WOSI (5 each). The PRO used was not specified in 52 article abstracts: 22 of the 143 primary research articles, 7 of 18 study protocols and 30 of 34 systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of musculoskeletal disorders were researched in 2014, with little overlap in PRO tools used even within diseases. Standardisation of tool use would aid comparison of outcomes across studies. Evidence surveillance including study protocols, results and systematic reviews may help identify trends in PRO use within specific diseases.