Validity of functional patient-reported outcomes in head and neck oncology: A systematic review

Oral Oncology ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 125 ◽  
pp. 105701
Author(s):  
Adrian I. Mendez ◽  
Jacob G.J. Wihlidal ◽  
Dean T. Eurich ◽  
Anthony C. Nichols ◽  
S. Danielle MacNeil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Head And Neck Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

Enhanced Recovery Experience After Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes

2019 ◽  
pp. 108-112
Author(s):  
Muath Alturkistani ◽  
Ali Alahmari ◽  
Hussam Alhumaidi ◽  
Mohammed Alharbi ◽  
Alhanouf Alqernas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Patient Reported

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in spine surgery: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brittany E. Haws ◽  
Benjamin Khechen ◽  
Mundeep S. Bawa ◽  
Dil V. Patel ◽  
Harmeet S. Bawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Information System ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Strong Correlations ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Outcomes Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Measurement Information System

OBJECTIVEThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed to provide a standardized measure of clinical outcomes that is valid and reliable across a variety of patient populations. PROMIS has exhibited strong correlations with many legacy patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. However, it is unclear to what extent PROMIS has been used within the spine literature. In this context, the purpose of this systematic review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the PROMIS literature for spine-specific populations that can be used to inform clinicians and guide future work. Specifically, the authors aimed to 1) evaluate publication trends of PROMIS in the spine literature, 2) assess how studies have used PROMIS, and 3) determine the correlations of PROMIS domains with legacy PROs as reported for spine populations.METHODSStudies reporting PROMIS scores among spine populations were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and a review of reference lists from obtained studies. Articles were excluded if they did not report original results, or if the study population was not evaluated or treated for spine-related complaints. Characteristics of each study and journal in which it was published were recorded. Correlation of PROMIS to legacy PROs was reported with 0.1 ≤ |r| < 0.3, 0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.5, and |r| ≥ 0.5 indicating weak, moderate, and strong correlations, respectively.RESULTSTwenty-one articles were included in this analysis. Twelve studies assessed the validity of PROMIS whereas 9 used PROMIS as an outcome measure. The first study discussing PROMIS in patients with spine disorders was published in 2012, whereas the majority were published in 2017. The most common PROMIS domain used was Pain Interference. Assessments of PROMIS validity were most frequently performed with the Neck Disability Index. PROMIS domains demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with the legacy PROs that were evaluated. Studies assessing the validity of PROMIS exhibited substantial variability in PROMIS domains and legacy PROs used for comparisons.CONCLUSIONSThere has been a recent increase in the use of PROMIS within the spine literature. However, only a minority of studies have incorporated PROMIS for its intended use as an outcomes measure. Overall, PROMIS has exhibited moderate to strong correlations with a majority of legacy PROs used in the spine literature. These results suggest that PROMIS can be effective in the assessment and tracking of PROs among spine populations.

scholarly journals Correction to: Robotic‑arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junren Zhang ◽  
Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou ◽  
Nathan Ng ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Philip M. Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Robotic Arm ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Total Knee ◽  
Improved Accuracy

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x

scholarly journals AB0116 THE EFFECTS OF DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES; PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1087.1-1087
Author(s):  
M. Van den Dikkenberg, Msc ◽  
N. Luurssen-Masurel ◽  
M. Kuijper ◽  
M. R. Kok ◽  
P. De Jong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Activity Limitations ◽  
Definitive Answer ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Disease Modifying

Background:The need to involve patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increases, since PROs quantify patient relevant outcomes. Although PROs have been incorporated in the core-outcome sets in clinical trials, knowledge about the treatment effects on these PROs is scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), of any type, on relevant PRO domains mentioned in the ICHOM standard set. This might support rheumatologists and RA patients during treatment decisions.Objectives:To get insight in the treatment effects of DMARDs of any type on three PRO domains that matter to patients (pain, activity limitations and fatigue).Methods:A systematic review was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Included were all studies that were published before August 2019 and showed DMARD treatment effects in RA on PROs that are part of the ICHOM standard set. Three Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for the PRO domains pain, activity limitations and fatigue. Preliminary results of DMARDs (in)directly compared to placebo were visualized by forest plots using R.Results:The search strategy yielded n=5974 articles. After selection was performed by 2 independent researchers, n=70 individual articles representing n=53 studies were extracted, over the three PRO domains; pain (n=31), activity limitations (n=41) and fatigue (n=21). In all RCTs, PROs were only reported as secondary or tertiary endpoints. In figure 1, we show the effects on PROs for any type of DMARD investigated compared to placebo. Overall, DMARDs show a greater reduction in pain (standardized mean difference (SMD); -0.97 – -0.22) and most of them in activity limitations (SMD; -0.81 – 0.56). In fatigue, this clear direction is lacking (SMD; -0.86 – 3.5). csDMARDs and anti-TNF seem to perform slightly, but nog significantly, worse than other bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the first two domains.Conclusion:Within in this systematic review we report a reduction for DMARDs of any type on the domains of pain and activity limitations compared to placebo. However, results are still preliminary and should be interpreted with care. A more comprehensive network analysis might give a more definitive answer which DMARD performs best.Figure 1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document