Commentary on: Quality of Patient-Reported Outcome Studies Utilizing the BREAST-Q: A Systematic Review

Author(s):  
Per Hedén
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miss Charlotte L. Moss ◽  
Ajay Aggarwal ◽  
Asad Qureshi ◽  
Benjamin Taylor ◽  
Teresa Guerrero-Urbano ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are emerging as an important component of patient management in the cancer setting, providing broad perspectives on patients’ quality of life and experience. The use of PROMs is, however, generally limited to the context of randomised control trials, as healthcare services are challenged to sustain high quality of care whilst facing increasing demand and financial shortfalls. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify any oncological benefit of using PROMs and investigate the wider impact on patient experience, in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity specifically. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE (Pubmed) and Ovid Gateway (Embase and Ovid) until April 2020. Studies investigating the oncological outcomes of PROMs were deemed suitable for inclusion. Results A total of 21 studies were included from 2167 screened articles. Various domains of quality of life (QoL) were identified as potential prognosticators for oncologic outcomes in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity, independent of other clinicopathological features of disease: 3 studies identified global QoL as a prognostic factor, 6 studies identified physical and role functioning, and 2 studies highlighted fatigue. In addition to improved outcomes, a number of included studies also reported that the use of PROMs enhanced both patient-clinician communication and patient satisfaction with care in the clinical setting. Conclusions This review highlights the necessity of routine collection of PROMs within the pelvic abdominal cancer setting to improve patient quality of life and outcomes.


Author(s):  
Michaela Gabes ◽  
Helge Knüttel ◽  
Gesina Kann ◽  
Christina Tischer ◽  
Christian J. Apfelbacher

Abstract Purpose To critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of all existing PROMs that have been validated in hyperhidrosis to at least some extend by applying the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Thereby, we aim to give a recommendation for the use of PROMs in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Methods We considered studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement properties of PROMs as eligible. A systematic literature search in three big databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Furthermore, we applied predefined quality criteria for good measurement properties and finally, graded the quality of the evidence. Results Twenty-four articles reporting on 13 patient-reported outcome measures were included. Three instruments can be further recommended for use. They showed evidence for sufficient content validity and moderate- to high-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The methodological assessment showed existing evidence gaps for eight other PROMs, which therefore require further validation studies to make an adequate decision on their recommendation. The Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure-Axillary (HDSM-Ax) and the short-form health survey with 36 items (SF-36) were the only questionnaires not recommended for use in patients with hyperhidrosis due to moderate- to high-quality evidence for insufficient measurement properties. Conclusion Three PROMs, the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index (HidroQoL), the Hyperhidrosis Questionnaire (HQ) and the Sweating Cognitions Inventory (SCI), can be recommended for use in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Results obtained with these three instruments can be seen as trustworthy. Nevertheless, further validation of all three PROMs is desirable. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170247


Author(s):  
Lior Har-Shai ◽  
Sar-El Ofek ◽  
Addy Brandstetter ◽  
Keren H Cohen ◽  
Tamir Shay ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are essential the assessment of surgical procedures in plastic surgery. An accepted and validated questionnaire is the Breast-Q. Objectives This study aims to assess the quality of PRO studies in plastic surgery utilizing the Breast-Q questionnaire. Methods This study included two steps: (1) A systematic review of 23 key-criteria assessing the quality of survey-research in studies utilizing the Breast-Q which were published between 2015-2018; (2) Review of current guidance for survey-research in journals related to Plastic Surgery and Breast Surgery which were included in the systematic review. Results 79 studies were included in the systematic review. Many key-criteria were poorly reported: 51.9% of the studies did not provide a defined response rate and almost 90% did not provide a method for analysis of non-response error. 67.1% lacked a description of the sample's representativeness of the population of interest, and 82.3% did not present a sample size calculation. 11.4% of papers failed to describe the data analyzing methods; in 27.8% the data analysis which was presented could not allow replication of the results. Of the 16 journals in Plastic Surgery and Breast Surgery that their "Instruction to Authors" were reviewed, 15 (93.7%) did not provide any guidance for survey reporting. Conclusions The majority of key criteria are under-reported by authors publishing their survey-research in peer-reviewed journals in the fields of plastic and breast surgery. There is an urgent need for constructing a well-developed reporting guideline for survey-research in plastic surgery and particularly in breast surgery.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Davies ◽  
R. Macefield ◽  
K. Avery ◽  
J. M. Blazeby ◽  
S. Potter

Abstract Background Breast reconstruction (BR) is performed to improve outcomes for patients undergoing mastectomy. A recently developed core outcome set for BR includes six patient-reported outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future studies. It is vital that any instrument used to measure these outcomes as part of a core measurement set be robustly developed and validated so data are reliable and accurate. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the development and measurement properties of existing BR patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to inform instrument selection for future studies. Methods A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of development and validation studies of BR PROMs was conducted to assess their measurement properties. PROMs with adequate content validity were assessed using three steps: (1) the methodological quality of each identified study was assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist; (2) criteria were applied for assessing good measurement properties; and (3) evidence was summarized and the quality of evidence assessed using a modified GRADE approach. Results Fourteen articles reported the development and measurement properties of six PROMs. Of these, only three (BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23) were considered to have adequate content validity and proceeded to full evaluation. This showed that all three PROMs had been robustly developed and validated and demonstrated adequate quality. Conclusions BREAST-Q, BRECON-31, and EORTC QLQ-BRECON-23 have been well-developed and demonstrate adequate measurement properties. Work with key stakeholders is now needed to generate consensus regarding which PROM should be recommended for inclusion in a core measurement set.


2020 ◽  
pp. 030802262091040
Author(s):  
Ghodsiyeh Joveini ◽  
Armin Zareiyan ◽  
Laleh Lajevardi ◽  
Mitra Khalafbeigi ◽  
Afsoon Hassani Mehraban

Introduction Enhancing participation is the focus of occupational therapy. Comprehensive and accurate assessment ensures that clinicians can tailor an intervention to the client’s needs. This systematic review was completed to identify Persian adolescents’ participation measures and critically appraise them. It would be helpful in the selection of the most appropriate instrument to use in adolescent-related research and clinical practice. Method Ten bibliographic databases, four Iranian and six international, without year limits were searched up to June 2019. A systematic search was directed according to COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures and PRISMA guidelines (Systematic review registration: CRD42017073581). Results Seven measures were extracted from the articles. Reviewing the content and psychometric properties of the measures as well as the methodological quality of the studies indicated that the Modified Activity Questionnaire is the only measure with consistent and moderately reliable results. It measures adolescent participation in leisure activities but not all domains of participation. Conclusion There may be a growing need for adapting existing Persian measures or developing new ones based on specific age features related to puberty-stage alongside cultural, social and academic demands, which have a significant effect on adolescents’ participation in meaningful occupations. High methodological quality in designing such studies also has great importance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document