The methodological requirements for clinical examination and patient-reported outcomes, and how to test them

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto S. Rosales ◽  
Isam Atroshi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Examination ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Observer Agreement ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Patient Reported

This article presents the methodological requirements for clinical examination and patient-reported outcomes measurements. The assessment of any measurement for clinical research in hand surgery is difficult. A method of measuring a criterion could be 100% reliable but 100% invalid. Bias may be present in our assessment if we do not take into account the methodological requirements related to reliability, validity, and responsiveness of our measures. Reliability refers to intra-observer agreement, inter-observer agreement, or agreement between two methods of assessment, and, for patient-reported measures, internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Validity is the capability of a clinical method to measure what it proposes to measure. Assessing validity involves comparing a measure with one or more other measures, and, if possible, with a reference standard criterion. Responsiveness is the ability to detect important clinical change. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments provides the standards required for design and recommended statistical analyses of patient-reported outcome measures.

scholarly journals Which patient-reported outcomes shall we use in hand surgery?

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Marks
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
General Quality

Nowadays, the use of patient-reported outcome measures to monitor a treatment effect in daily practice or to quantify study outcomes is indispensable. In hand surgery, there is a wide variety available. This article provides an overview about the most common hand-specific, upper-extremity specific and general quality of life patient-reported outcome measurement instruments with adequate psychometric properties. A checklist and a decision tree are provided for choosing the appropriate instrument when evaluating patients with hand conditions.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures in community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review of application and content validity

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Lloyd ◽  
Emily Callander ◽  
Amalia Karahalios ◽  
Lucy Desmond ◽  
Harin Karunajeewa
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Community Acquired Pneumonia ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a vital component of patient-centred care. Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant contributor to morbidity, mortality and health service costs globally, but there is a lack of consensus regarding PROMs for this condition.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration for studies, both interventional and observational, of adult recovery from CAP that applied at least one validated PROM instrument and were published before 31 December 2017. The full text of included studies was examined and data collected on study design, PROM instruments applied, constructs examined and the demographic characteristics of the populations measured. For all CAP-specific PROM instruments identified, content validity was assessed using the COnsensus based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines (COSMIN).ResultsForty-two articles met the inclusion criteria and applied a total of 17 different PROM instruments including five (30%) classified as CAP specific, six (35%) as generic and six (35%) that measured functional performance or were specific to another disease. The 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) was the most commonly used instrument (15 articles). Only one of 11 (9%) patient cohorts assessed using a CAP-specific instrument had a mean age ≥70 years. The CAP-Sym and CAP-BIQ questionnaires had sufficient content validity, though the quality of evidence for all CAP-specific instruments was rated as very low to low.DiscussionPROM instruments used to measure recovery from CAP are inconsistent in constructs measured and have frequently been developed and validated in highly selective patient samples that are not fully representative of the hospitalised CAP population. The overall content validity of all available CAP-specific instruments is unclear, particularly in the context of elderly hospitalised populations. Based on current evidence, generic health instruments are likely to be of greater value for measuring recovery from CAP in this group.

Preoperative Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Common Hand Surgeries

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472097412
Author(s):  
Ali Aneizi ◽  
Dominique Gelmann ◽  
Dominic J. Ventimiglia ◽  
Patrick M. J. Sajak ◽  
Vidushan Nadarajah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Opioid Users

Background: The objectives of this study were to determine the baseline patient characteristics associated with preoperative opioid use and to establish whether preoperative opioid use is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing common hand surgeries. Methods: Patients undergoing common hand surgeries from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective orthopedic registry at a single academic institution. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether patients were opioid users versus nonusers. On enrollment in the registry, patients completed 6 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Social Satisfaction, Anxiety, and Depression), the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (BMHQ), a surgical expectations questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Scale (NPS). Statistical analysis included multivariable regression to determine whether preoperative opioid use was associated with patient characteristics and preoperative scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Results: After controlling for covariates, an analysis of 353 patients (opioid users, n = 122; nonusers, n = 231) showed that preoperative opioid use was associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (odds ratio [OR], 2.88), current smoking (OR, 1.91), and lower body mass index (OR, 0.95). Preoperative opioid use was also associated with significantly worse baseline PROMIS scores across 6 domains, lower BMHQ scores, and NPS hand scores. Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is common in hand surgery patients with a rate of 35%. Preoperative opioid use is associated with multiple baseline patient characteristics and is predictive of worse baseline scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Future studies should determine whether such associations persist in the postoperative setting between opioid users and nonusers.

scholarly journals Acceptability of no-test medical abortion provided via telemedicine: analysis of patient-reported outcomes

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2020-200954
Author(s):  
Chelsey Porter Erlank ◽  
Jonathan Lord ◽  
Kathryn Church
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Post Procedure ◽  
High Satisfaction ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
At Home

IntroductionThe English government approved both stages of early medical abortion (EMA), using mifepristone and misoprostol under 10 weeks’ gestation, for at-home use on 30 March 2020. MSI Reproductive Choices UK (MSUK), one of the largest providers of abortion services in England, launched a no-test telemedicine EMA pathway on 6 April 2020. The objectives of this study were to report key patient-reported outcome measures and to assess whether our sample was representative of the whole population receiving no-test telemedicine EMA.MethodsA sample of all MSUK’s telemedicine EMA patients between April and August 2020 were invited to opt in to a follow-up call to answer clinical and satisfaction questions. A total of 1243 (13.7% of all telemedicine EMAs) were successfully followed-up, on average within 5 days post-procedure.ResultsPatients reported high confidence in telemedicine EMA and high satisfaction with the convenience, privacy and ease of managing their abortion at home. The sample responding were broadly equivalent to the whole population receiving telemedicine. No patient reported that they were unable to consult privately. The majority (1035, 83%) of patients reported preferring the telemedicine pathway, with 824 (66%) indicating that they would choose telemedicine again if COVID-19 were no longer an issue.ConclusionsTelemedicine EMA is a valued, private, convenient and more accessible option that is highly acceptable for patients seeking an abortion, especially those for whom in-clinic visits are logistically or emotionally challenging. Evidence that this pathway would be a first choice again in future for most patients supports the case to make telemedicine EMA permanent.

scholarly journals A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures used for adults with an ankle fracture

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca McKeown ◽  
David R. Ellard ◽  
Abdul-Rasheed Rabiu ◽  
Eleni Karasouli ◽  
Rebecca S. Kearney
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Ankle fractures are painful and debilitating injuries that pose a significant burden to society and healthcare systems. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used outcome measures in clinical trials of interventions for ankle fracture but there is little evidence on their validity and reliability. This systematic review aims to identify and appraise evidence for the measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs used in adults with an ankle fracture using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) methodology. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL online databases for evidence of measurement properties of ankle specific PROMs. Articles were included if they assessed or described the development of the PROM in adults with ankle fracture. Articles were ineligible if they used the PROM to assess the measurement properties of another instrument. Abstracts without full articles and conference proceedings were ineligible, as were articles that adapted the PROM under evaluation without any formal justification of the changes as part of a cross-cultural validation or translation process. Two reviewers completed the screening. To assess methodological quality we used COSMIN risk of bias checklist and summarised evidence using COSMIN quality criteria and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Two reviewers assessed the methodological quality and extracted the data for a sample of articles. Results The searches returned a total of 377 articles. From these, six articles were included after application of eligibility criteria. These articles evaluated three PROMs: A-FORM, OMAS and AAOS. The A-FORM had evidence of a robust development process within the patient population, however lacks post-formulation testing. The OMAS showed sufficient levels of reliability, internal consistency and construct validity. The AAOS showed low quality evidence of sufficient construct validity. Conclusions There is insufficient evidence to support the recommendation of a particular PROM for use in adult ankle fracture research based on COSMIN methodology. Further validation of these outcome measures is required in order to ensure PROMs used in this area are sufficiently valid and reliable to assess treatment effects. This would enable high quality, evidenced-based management of adults with ankle fracture.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document