Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Baiardini, I.
• Bousquet, P. J.
• Brzoza, Z.
• Canonica, G. W.
• Compalati, E.
• Fiocchi, A.
• Fokkens, W.
• Van Wijk, R. G.
• La Grutta, S.
• Lombardi, C.
• Maurer, M.
• Pinto, A. M.
• Ridolo, E.
• Senna, G. E.
• Terreehorst, I.
• Bom, A. Todo
• Bousquet, J.
• Zuberbier, T.
• Braido, F.

Titel

Recommendations for assessing Patient‐Reported Outcomes and Health‐Related quality of life in clinical trials on allergy: a GA2LEN taskforce position paper

Ist Teil von

• Allergy (Copenhagen), 2010-03, Vol.65 (3), p.290-295

Ort / Verlag

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Erscheinungsjahr

2010

Quelle

Access via Wiley Online Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• To cite this article: Baiardini I, Bousquet PJ, Brzoza Z, Canonica GW, Compalati E, Fiocchi A, Fokkens W, van Wijk RG, La Grutta S, Lombardi C, Maurer M, Pinto AM, Ridolo E, Senna GE, Terreehorst I, Todo Bom A, Bousquet J, Zuberbier T, Braido F. Recommendations for assessing Patient‐Reported Outcomes and Health‐Related quality of life in clinical trials on allergy: a GA2LEN taskforce position paper. Allergy 2010; 65: 290–295. The aim of this Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN) consensus report is to provide recommendations for patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) evaluation in clinical trials for allergic diseases, which constitute a global health problem in terms of physical, psychological economic and social impact. During the last 40 years, PROs have gained large consideration and use in the scientific community, to gain a better understanding of patients’ subjective assessment with respect to elements concerning their health condition. They include all health‐related reports coming from the patient, without involvement or interpretation by physician or others. PROs assessment should be performed by validated tools (disease‐specific tools when available or generic ones) selected taking into account the aim of the study, the expected intervention effects and the determinant and confounding factors or patient‐related factors which could influence PROs. Moreover, each tool should be used exclusively in the patient population following the authors’ indications without modification and performing a cross‐cultural validation if the tool must be used in a language that differs from the original. The result analysis also suggests that the relevance of PROs results in any interventional study should include a pre–post assessment providing information concerning statistical differences within or among groups, rates of response for the PROs and a minimal important difference for the population. The report underlines the importance of further investigation on some topics, such as the quality assessment of existing PROs tools, the definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria and a more extensive evaluation of the correlation between PROs, besides health‐related quality of life, and clinical data.