Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017;2(1):12.
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0037-6. Epub 2018 Feb 27.

Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium translation process: consensus development of updated best practices

Sonya Eremenco  1 , Sheryl Pease  2 , Sarah Mann  1 , Pamela Berry  3 ; PRO Consortium’s Process Subcommittee
Affiliations
Review

Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium translation process: consensus development of updated best practices

Sonya Eremenco et al. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017.

Abstract

This paper describes the rationale and goals of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium's instrument translation process. The PRO Consortium has developed a number of novel PRO measures which are in the process of qualification by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in clinical trials where endpoints based on these measures would support product labeling claims. Given the importance of FDA qualification of these measures, the PRO Consortium's Process Subcommittee determined that a detailed linguistic validation (LV) process was necessary to ensure that all translations of Consortium-developed PRO measures are performed using a standardized approach with the rigor required to meet regulatory and pharmaceutical industry expectations, as well as having a clearly defined instrument translation process that the translation industry can support. The consensus process involved gathering information about current best practices from 13 translation companies with expertise in LV, consolidating the findings to generate a proposed process, and obtaining iterative feedback from the translation companies and PRO Consortium member firms on the proposed process in two rounds of review in order to update existing principles of good practice in LV and to provide sufficient detail for the translation process to ensure consistency across PRO Consortium measures, sponsors, and translation companies. The consensus development resulted in a 12-step process that outlines universal and country-specific new translation approaches, as well as country-specific adaptations of existing translations. The PRO Consortium translation process will play an important role in maintaining the validity of the data generated through these measures by ensuring that they are translated by qualified linguists following a standardized and rigorous process that reflects best practice.

Keywords: Country-specific translation; Cultural adaptation; Linguistic validation; Patient-reported outcome; Translation; Universal translation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SE has over 20 years of experience in translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of PRO measures and served as co-chair of the International Society for Quality of Life (ISOQOL) Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group from 2013 to 2017. She has also co-authored several publications on translation and linguistic validation methodology.Not applicable as this manuscript does not report or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue.Not applicableSE is an employee of the Critical Path Institute and has no competing interests. SP is an employee and shareholder of Pfizer and has no competing interests. SM is an employee of the Critical Path Institute and has no competing interests. PB was an employee and shareholder of GlaxoSmithKline at the time the work described in the manuscript was conducted. She is currently an employee and shareholder of Janssen and has no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overview of PRO Consortium Translation Process Development
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Coons SJ, Kothari S, Monz B, Burke L. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. 2011;90(5):743–748. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2011.203. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hayes RP, Blum SI, Gordon MF, Piault E, Burke LB, Slagle AF, Coons SJ. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Lessons learned along the path to PRO instrument qualification. Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science. 2015;49(1):132–138. doi: 10.1177/2168479014549858. - DOI - PubMed
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2014) Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Qualification Process for Drug Development Tools. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformati.... Accessed 1 June 2017.
    1. Eremenco S, Cella D, Arnold BJ. A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:212–232. doi: 10.1177/0163278705275342. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N, European Regulatory Issues and Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) Group Literature review of methods to translate health-related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value Health. 2008;11(3):509–5121. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00292.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources