Article
Importance of patient participation in Systematic Reviews and its impact on outcomes – experience from a network meta-analysis with breast cancer patients
Search Medline for
Authors
-
Tina Jakob
- University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Haematological Malignancies, Cologne, Deutschland
-
Gisela Schwesig
- Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs NRW e. V., Deutschland
-
Birgit Jorzick
- Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs NRW e. V., Deutschland
-
Hedy Kerek-Bodden
- Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs NRW e. V., Deutschland
-
Achim Wöckel
- University Hospital of Würzburg, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Würzburg, Deutschland
-
Nicole Skoetz
- University of Cologne, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Cochrane Cancer, Cologne, Deutschland
| Published: | February 12, 2020 |
|---|
Outline
Text
Background/research question: Network meta-analysis (NMA) within Systematic Reviews is a complex method with the intention of comparing different treatment options (e.g. different types of interventions). The aim is to generate a hierarchy of these in terms of efficacy and safety. Particularly for the conduct of NMA, patient involvement is of highest relevance, since the different treatment options might be differently efficient and presumably cause different kinds and magnitudes of adverse events. The objective of this project was to involve patients at Cochrane protocol stage to discuss the prioritisation of outcomes and focus of our review.
Methods: After registering the title “Bone-modifying agents for the prevention of bone loss in women with early or locally advanced breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis”, we invited patients and patient representatives to a meeting, where we presented our planned analysis and the importance and impact it may have for decision making of patients and clinicians in national and international breast cancer guidelines. We asked the attendees to provide feedback and evaluate whether we had identified all patient-relevant outcomes and whether we had prioritized them in a correct order. The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany (01KG1806).
Results: Patients and patient representatives of the German patients' support group ‘Frauenselbsthilfe nach Krebs NRW e. V.’ participated in the two-hour meeting. After presentation and explanation of the project and methods, we discussed the completeness of the outcomes of interest and the aim of our planned analysis. After thorough discussion, our primary outcome ‘fracture rate’ was changed to ‘bone density’. Two other patient-relevant outcomes were added to our list of secondary outcomes (‘occurrence of bone metastases’ and ‘bone pain after administration’). All attendees agreed to be involved in the further process of the review, so we continuously report and discuss milestones of the project.
Conclusion: Patient preferences need to be considered for the prioritization of outcomes in NMA. It is particularly important to consider them at an early stage, which ensures to set the right focus for all subsequent steps of the review process. Actively involving patients and patient representatives adds great value and should be an integral part in the conduct of Systematic Reviews.
Competing interests: The project is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany (01KG1806), which does therefore not lead to any conflicts of interest.
