scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Post-mastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Development and Measurement Properties

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 386-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Davies ◽  
R. Macefield ◽  
K. Avery ◽  
J. M. Blazeby ◽  
S. Potter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

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.

scholarly journals Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hyperhidrosis: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Gabes ◽  
Helge Knüttel ◽  
Gesina Kann ◽  
Christina Tischer ◽  
Christian J. Apfelbacher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Quality Evidence

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

scholarly journals Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with hyperhidrosis: protocol for a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela Gabes ◽  
Helge Knüttel ◽  
Christian J. Apfelbacher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Background Hyperhidrosis is a chronic skin condition that impairs the patient’s quality of life (QoL). There are several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients affected by hyperhidrosis available; however an evidence-based assessment of their quality has not been undertaken so far. Objective In our systematic review, we aim to identify all existing PROMs that were developed and/or validated for measuring patient-reported outcomes in patients with hyperhidrosis and assess their measurement properties in a transparent and structured way to give a recommendation for future clinical research. Methods/design Our systematic review aims to contain all PROMs developed and/or validated for patients with hyperhidrosis. We will perform a highly sensitive, systematic literature search including the databases MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science). Especially studies which evaluate, describe, or compare measurement properties of PROMs for patients with hyperhidrosis will be considered as eligible. Two independent reviewers will judge the eligibility of the studies found in the literature search. The study and PROM characteristics will be summarized in evidence tables. The methodological quality of each study will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. We will apply predefined and consensus-based quality criteria for good measurement properties. Subsequently, the quality of the evidence will be graded. Furthermore, aspects on interpretability and feasibility will be described. A final recommendation will be given. Discussion In our systematic review, we aim to provide a comprehensive description of the quality of all existing PROMs for patients with hyperhidrosis. The assessment of measurement properties, interpretability, and feasibility will serve as a guidance regarding the selection of PROMs for future clinical hyperhidrosis trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170247

scholarly journals The suitability of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on quality of life in people with diabetes: a systematic review using COSMIN methods

Diabetologia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Carlton ◽  
Joanna Leaviss ◽  
Frans Pouwer ◽  
Christel Hendrieckx ◽  
Melanie M. Broadley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Aims/hypothesis It is generally accepted that hypoglycaemia can negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of people living with diabetes. However, the suitability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess this impact is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to identify PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL and examine their quality and psychometric properties. Methods Systematic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library databases) were undertaken to identify published articles reporting on the development or validation of hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL (or domains of QoL) in adults with diabetes. A protocol was developed and registered with PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42019125153). Studies were assessed for inclusion at title/abstract stage by one reviewer. Full-text articles were scrutinised where considered relevant or potentially relevant or where doubt existed. Twenty per cent of articles were assessed by a second reviewer. PROMS were evaluated, according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and data were extracted independently by two reviewers against COSMIN criteria. Assessment of each PROM’s content validity included reviewer ratings (N = 16) of relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility: by researchers (n = 6); clinicians (n = 6); and adults with diabetes (n = 4). Results Of the 214 PROMs used to assess the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL (or domains of QoL), seven hypoglycaemia-specific PROMS were identified and subjected to full evaluation: the Fear of Hypoglycemia 15-item scale; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey version II; the Hypoglycemia Fear Survey-II short-form; the Hypoglycemic Attitudes and Behavior Scale; the Hypoglycemic Confidence Scale; and the QoLHYPO questionnaire. Content validity was rated as ‘inconsistent’, with most as ‘(very) low’ quality, while structural validity was deemed ‘unsatisfactory’. Other measurement properties (e.g. reliability) varied, and evidence gaps were apparent across all PROMs. None of the identified studies addressed cross-cultural validity or measurement error. Criterion validity and responsiveness were not assessed due to the lack of a ‘gold standard’ measure of the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL against which to compare the PROMS. Conclusions/interpretation None of the hypoglycaemia-specific PROMs identified had sufficient evidence to demonstrate satisfactory validity, reliability and responsiveness. All were limited in terms of content and structural validity, which restricts their utility for assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL in the clinic or research setting. Further research is needed to address the content validity of existing PROMs, or the development of new PROM(s), for the purpose of assessing the impact of hypoglycaemia on QoL. Prospero registration CRD42019125153 Graphical abstract

scholarly journals Patient reported outcome measures in childbirth and postpartum maternal quality of life: a protocol for systematic review of measurement properties.

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Laura O'Byrne ◽  
Gillian Maher ◽  
Ali Khashan ◽  
Richard Greene ◽  
John Browne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Postpartum Women ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient centred healthcare is the corner stone to many healthcare strategies. Patient specific health needs should be at the fore of healthcare improvements and quality measurements.  Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) that support real world clinical effectiveness assessments are increasingly being used to highlight domains where there is the greatest scope for change. Objectives: This systematic review aims to identify and evaluate existing patient reported assessment measures/tool(s) that can be used in developing a PROM for postpartum women. We will assess and evaluate their measurement properties in a transparent and structured way in accordance with the COSMIN guidelines. Methods: Methodological guidelines for systematic reviews of PROMs have been developed by the COSMIN initiative and will be followed for this systematic review. A systematic literature review will be performed using PubMed and EMBASE from inception to the present day. Two reviewers independently will judge eligibility, conduct data extraction and assess the methodological quality of each study as per COSMIN guidelines. Inclusion criteria: studies should concern PROM with an aim to evaluate measurement properties in the development or the evaluation of a PROM of interest. Included PROMS will focus upon postpartum women assessing morbidity and quality of care. All peer reviewed studies with an assessment tool designed for patient completion will be considered. Exclusion criteria; abstract, letters and non-peer reviewed publications. Studies will be graded on measurement properties and quality of evidence as laid out by COSMIN. All studies and characteristics eligible for inclusion will be summarised and a recommendation to the most suitable measurement tool(s) will be given. Discussion: We will provide a comprehensive description of all available patient reported assessment tools available for childbirth and postpartum quality of life and recommend based on COSMIN guidelines the most suitable instrument(s) available for use.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures for patients with meniscal tears: a systematic review of measurement properties and evaluation with the COSMIN checklist

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon GF Abram ◽  
Robert Middleton ◽  
David J Beard ◽  
Andrew J Price ◽  
Sally Hopewell
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Selection Of

ObjectiveMeniscal tears occur frequently in the population and the most common surgical treatment, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, is performed in approximately two million cases worldwide each year. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarise and critically appraise the evidence for the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with meniscal tears.DesignA systematic review was undertaken. Data on reported measurement properties were extracted and the quality of the studies appraised according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.Data sourcesA search of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO, unlimited by language or publication date (last search 20 February 2017).Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesDevelopment and validation studies reporting the measurement properties of PROMs in patients with meniscal tears were included.Results11 studies and 10 PROMs were included. The overall quality of studies was poor. For measurement of symptoms and functional status, there is only very limited evidence supporting the selection of either the Lysholm Knee Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form or the Dutch version of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. For measuring health-related quality of life, only limited evidence supports the selection of the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET). Of all the PROMs evaluated, WOMET has the strongest evidence for content validity.ConclusionFor patients with meniscal tears, there is poor quality and incomplete evidence regarding the validity of the currently available PROMs. Further research is required to ensure these PROMs truly reflect the symptoms, function and quality of life of patients with meniscal tears.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056847.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures for inguinal hernia repair are insufficiently validated: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 223-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Gram-Hanssen ◽  
Anders Tolstrup ◽  
Dennis Zetner ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Inguinal Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Inguinal Hernia Repair ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Purpose To systematically assess the validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Data sources A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were consulted. Study selection Only studies explicitly aimed at validation of PROMs specific for patients with inguinal hernia were included. Data extraction Data regarding measurement properties of PROMs were extracted from the included studies. Each study was critically assessed for methodological quality and each PROM was evaluated for sufficient measurement properties. Results of data synthesis We included 15 studies, covering 11 different PROMs. The Carolinas Comfort Scale was the most frequently investigated PROM, being covered in five of the included publications. The included PROMs were evaluated according to nine different measurement properties, of which internal consistency and construct validity were the most frequently assessed. Evidence regarding content validity and structural validity was universally inadequate, according to the criteria for good measurement properties, as defined by the COSMIN. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, it is not possible to formulate recommendations for application of PROMs for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Further validation of the included PROMs is necessary especially regarding content validity and structural validity.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures in subarachnoid hemorrhage

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (23) ◽  
pp. 1096-1112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Nobels-Janssen ◽  
Philip J. van der Wees ◽  
Wim I.M. Verhagen ◽  
Gert P. Westert ◽  
Ronald H.M.A. Bartels ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Specific

ObjectivePatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are aspects of a patient's health status and are considered important for stimulating patient-centered care. Current outcome measures in clinical care for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) are insufficient to capture PROs. In this systematic review, we aimed to summarize the evidence regarding the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in aSAH patients.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature published from inception until October 29, 2018, in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Eligible studies had to evaluate measurement properties and capture PROs in aSAH patients. The quality of the studies and measurement properties were assessed using the consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018058566).ResultsWe identified 9 articles that reported the assessment of 7 different disease-specific and generic PROMs used for aSAH patients, including 5 that focused on the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QoL). The methodologic quality of the validation processes used was generally doubtful. None of the PROMs complied with current standards for content validity.ConclusionsDue to the low quality of evidence for the measurement properties, the evidence base for selecting a suitable PROM for use with aSAH patients is insufficient. Given the specific long-term consequences of aSAH, we consider a disease-specific PROM the most appropriate, with SS-QoL the most suitable PROM currently available.

scholarly journals Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e040751
Author(s):  
Zachary Blood ◽  
Anh Tran ◽  
Lauren Caleo ◽  
Robyn Saw ◽  
Mbathio Dieng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq

ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018086737.

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