scholarly journals What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Sansone ◽  
Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽  
Mario Faenza ◽  
Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽  
Sara Izzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Locoregional Anesthesia ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management. Objectives To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery. Methods Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively. Results Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques. Conclusion The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

scholarly journals What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Sansone ◽  
Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽  
Mario Faenza ◽  
Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽  
Sara Izzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Locoregional Anesthesia ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.Objectives: To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques.Conclusion: The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

scholarly journals What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Sansone ◽  
Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽  
Mario Faenza ◽  
Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽  
Sara Izzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Locoregional Anesthesia ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.Objectives: To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting, however no statistically significant difference emerged if compared to other techniques. For mastectomy only, the use of locoregional techniques reduces pain in the first hour after the end of the surgery if compared to other procedures (p = 0.02). Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay. In none of these cases, locoregional anesthesia was statistically superior to other techniques.Conclusion: The results of our review showed no differences between locoregional anesthesia and other techniques in the management of breast surgery. Locoregional techniques are superior in reducing pain in the first hour after mastectomy.

scholarly journals What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Sansone ◽  
Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽  
Mario Faenza ◽  
Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽  
Sara Izzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Postoperative Recovery ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Locoregional Anesthesia

Abstract Background : Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management . The aim of this study was t o establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for manag e ment of pain in adult after breast surgery . The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting. After mastectomy, the use of locoregional anesthesia techniques seems to reduce pain, especially in the first hour after the end of the surgery. Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia emerged from our review include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay.Conclusion: T he results of this study support the technique of locoregional anesthesia for breast surgery.

scholarly journals What is the role of locoregional anesthesia in breast surgery? A systematic literature review focused on pain intensity, opioid consumption, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pasquale Sansone ◽  
Luca Gregorio Giaccari ◽  
Mario Faenza ◽  
Pasquale Di Costanzo ◽  
Sara Izzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Breast Surgery ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Locoregional Anesthesia

Abstract Background: Breast surgery in the United States is common. Pain affects up to 50% of women undergoing breast surgery and can interfere with postoperative outcomes. General anesthesia is the conventional, most frequently used anaesthetic technique. Various locoregional anesthetic techniques are also used for breast surgeries. A systematic review of the use of locoregional anesthesia for postoperative pain in breast surgery is needed to clarify its role in pain management.Objectives: To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of locoregional anesthesia used in the treatment of pain after breast surgery.Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in Mars 2020 for studies examining locoregional anesthesia for management of pain in adults after breast surgery. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.Results: Nineteen studies evaluating locoregional anesthesia were included: 1058 patients underwent lumpectomy/mastectomy, 142 breast augmentation and 79 breast reduction. Locoregional anesthesia provides effective anesthesia and analgesia in the perioperative setting. After mastectomy, the use of locoregional anesthesia techniques seems to reduce pain, especially in the first hour after the end of the surgery. Other potentially beneficial effects of locoregional anesthesia emerged from our review include decreased need for opioids, decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting, fewer complications and increased patient satisfaction. All this improves postoperative recovery and shortens hospitalization stay.Conclusion: The results of this study support the technique of locoregional anesthesia for breast surgery.

scholarly journals How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saul Martins Paiva ◽  
Matheus de França Perazzo ◽  
Fernanda Ruffo Ortiz ◽  
Isabela Almeida Pordeus ◽  
Paulo Antônio Martins-Júnior
Keyword(s):  
Oral Health ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Impact

Abstract In the last decades, several instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals. However, some instruments lack thorough methodological validation or present conceptual differences that hinder comparisons with instruments. Thus, it can be difficult to clinicians and researchers to select a questionnaire that accurately reflect what are really meaningful to individuals. This short communication aimed to discuss the importance of use an appropriate checklist to select an instrument with a good methodological quality. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to provide tools for evidence-based instrument selection. The COSMIN checklist comprises ten boxes that evaluate whether a study meets the standard for good methodological quality and two additional boxes to meet studies that use the Item Response Theory method and general requirements for results generalization, resulting in four steps to be followed. In this way, it is required at least some expertise in psychometrics or clinimetrics to a wide-ranging use of this checklist. The COSMIN applications include its use to ensure the standardization of cross-cultural adaptations and safer comparisons between measurement studies and evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews of measurement properties. Also, it can be used by students when training about measurement properties and by editors and reviewers when revising manuscripts on this topic. The popularization of COSMIN checklist is therefore necessary to improve the selection and evaluation of health measurement instruments.

scholarly journals An overview and critique of the Test of Visual Perception Skills – fourth edition (TVPS-4)

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Brown ◽  
Lisa Peres
Keyword(s):  
Visual Perception ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cultural Validity ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
The Impact

Introduction The Test of Visual Perception Skills – fourth edition (TVPS-4) is an updated version of the Test of Visual Perception Skills – third edition (TVPS-3). The TVPS-4 is a standardized assessment of motor-free visual perception skills for individuals aged 5–21 years. Test norms were derived from a normative sample that reflected the United States population. Method The present paper outlines and appraises the reliability and validity of the TVPS-4. Measurement properties of the TVPS-4 were critiqued using the Quality Criteria for Health Status Questionnaires (QCHSQ) and the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist with 4-point rating scale. Results The TVPS-4 manual reports details of reasonable levels and types of overall reliability and validity. The QCHSQ and COSMIN checklist reviews suggested that further research is needed in relation to the TVPS-4’s measurement error, reproducibility, internal consistency and cross-cultural validity. Conclusion The TVPS-4 is an in-depth assessment that can be used to identify areas of impairment and assist with goal setting and intervention planning. The impact of the TVPS-4 on occupational therapy practice is also considered. Future research could investigate the cross-cultural validity of the TVPS-4 so that it can be used in other countries with confidence.

Measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 327-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Boet ◽  
Nicole Etherington ◽  
Sarah Larrigan ◽  
Li Yin ◽  
Hira Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Crisis Situations

BackgroundEducational interventions to improve teamwork in crisis situations have proliferated in recent years with substantial variation in teamwork measurement. This systematic review aimed to synthesise available tools and their measurement properties in order to identify the most robust tool for measuring the teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations.MethodsSearches were conducted in Embase (via OVID), PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Medline and Medline In-Process (via OVID) (through 12 January 2017). Studies evaluating the measurement properties of teamwork assessment tools for teams in clinical or simulated crisis situations were included. Two independent reviewers screened studies based on predetermined criteria and completed data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search yielded 1822 references. Twenty studies were included, representing 13 assessment tools. Tools were primarily assessed in simulated resuscitation scenarios for emergency department teams. The Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) had the most validation studies (n=5), which demonstrated three sources of validity (content, construct and concurrent) and three sources of reliability (internal consistency, inter-rater reliability and test–retest reliability). Most studies of TEAM’s measurement properties were at no risk of bias.ConclusionsA number of tools are available for assessing teamwork performance of teams in crisis situations. Although selection will ultimately depend on the user’s context, TEAM may be the most promising tool given its measurement evidence. Currently, there is a lack of tools to assess teamwork performance during intraoperative crisis situations. Additional research is needed in this regard.

scholarly journals Apathy Measures in Older Adults and People with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties Using the COSMIN Methodology

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Clare Burgon ◽  
Sarah Elizabeth Goldberg ◽  
Veronika van der Wardt ◽  
Catherine Brewin ◽  
Rowan H. Harwood
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Evaluation Procedure ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Patient Reported

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Apathy is highly prevalent in dementia and is also seen in mild cognitive impairment and the general population. Apathy contributes to failure to undertake daily activities and can lead to health problems or crises. It is therefore important to assess apathy. However, there is currently no gold standard measure of apathy. A comprehensive systematic review of the measurement properties of apathy scales is required. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018094390). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that aimed to develop or assess the validity or reliability of an apathy scale in participants over 65 years, living in the community. A systematic review was conducted in line with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments procedure for reviewing patient-reported outcome measures. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed, and all relevant measurement properties were assessed for quality. Results were pooled and rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation procedure. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fifty-seven publications regarding 18 measures and 39 variations met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of individual studies ranged from inadequate to very good and measurement properties ranged from insufficient to sufficient. Similarly, the overall evidence for measurement properties ranged from very low to high quality. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) had sufficient content validity, reliability, construct validity, and where applicable, structural validity and internal consistency. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Numerous scales are available to assess apathy, with varying psychometric properties. The AES and LARS are recommended for measuring apathy in older adults and people living with dementia. The apathy dimension of the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory should be limited to screening for apathy.

scholarly journals Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e042325
Author(s):  
Qirong Chen ◽  
Chongmei Huang ◽  
Aimee R Castro ◽  
Siyuan Tang
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Nursing Research ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Research Competence ◽  
Scoping Reviews

IntroductionNursing research competence of nursing personnel has received much attention in recent years, as nursing has developed as both an independent academic discipline and an evidence-based practiing profession. Instruments for appraising nursing research competence are important, as they can be used to assess nursing research competence of the target population, showing changes of this variable over time and measuring the effectiveness of interventions for improving nursing research competence. There is a need to map the current state of the science of the instruments for nursing research competence, and to identify well validated and reliable instruments. This paper describes a protocol for a scoping review to identify, evaluate, compare and summarise the instruments designed to measure nursing research competence.Methods and analysisThe scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework and Levac et al’s additional recommendations for applying this framework. The scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. The protocol is registered through the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ksh43/). Eight English databases and two Chinese databases will be searched between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2020 to retrieve manuscripts which include instrument(s) of nursing research competence. The literature screening and data extraction will be conducted by two researchers, independently. A third researcher will be involved when consensus is needed. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments methodology will be used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies on measurement properties of the instruments, as well as the quality of all the instruments identified.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed. We will disseminate the findings through a conference focusing on nursing research competence and publication of the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

Tools to Assess the External Validity of Randomized Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews: a Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Jung ◽  
Julia Balzer ◽  
Tobias Braun ◽  
Kerstin Luedtke
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract Background: Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews and to evaluate the quality of evidence regarding their measurement properties.Methods: A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies aiming to investigate the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Results: 34 publications reporting on the development or validation of 26 included tools were included. For 62% of the included tools, there was no evidence of any measurement property. For the remaining tools, reliability was assessed most frequently. Reliability was judged as “sufficient” for three tools (very low quality of evidence). Content validity was rated as “sufficient” for one tool (moderate quality of evidence).Conclusions: Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a new one. There is a need for more research for this purpose.Trial registration: Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document