G A Porter1, J M Skibber. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been significant developments and advances in the area of outcomes research in the past 25 years. Unfortunately, many surgical oncologists may not have a clear concept of outcomes research and the methodology involved. METHODS: A literature-based review article was done that included an overview of outcomes research, and study design and types, outcome measures, outcome instruments, and sources of outcome data were examined. In addition, we reviewed small area variation/volume outcome analysis as well as quality-of-life studies and their applications in surgical oncology clinical investigation. Specific examples from surgical oncology were identified. RESULTS: As the costs of health care have increased, so has the emphasis on measuring outcomes of medical and surgical care to determine the quality and appropriateness of care. Marked variations in a variety of outcomes after oncological procedures have been attributed to individual surgeon and institution characteristics. Because much of the clinical surgical oncology literature deals only with the traditional mortality and morbidity outcomes, a more comprehensive examination of patient outcomes is required to fully evaluate the impact of patient management decisions. Health-related quality of life can be measured and analyzed in several ways and decisions regarding the use of such methodology are dependent on multiple factors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical oncologists should recognize that the true value of their interventions requires systematic and comprehensive examination of patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND: There have been significant developments and advances in the area of outcomes research in the past 25 years. Unfortunately, many surgical oncologists may not have a clear concept of outcomes research and the methodology involved. METHODS: A literature-based review article was done that included an overview of outcomes research, and study design and types, outcome measures, outcome instruments, and sources of outcome data were examined. In addition, we reviewed small area variation/volume outcome analysis as well as quality-of-life studies and their applications in surgical oncology clinical investigation. Specific examples from surgical oncology were identified. RESULTS: As the costs of health care have increased, so has the emphasis on measuring outcomes of medical and surgical care to determine the quality and appropriateness of care. Marked variations in a variety of outcomes after oncological procedures have been attributed to individual surgeon and institution characteristics. Because much of the clinical surgical oncology literature deals only with the traditional mortality and morbidity outcomes, a more comprehensive examination of patient outcomes is required to fully evaluate the impact of patient management decisions. Health-related quality of life can be measured and analyzed in several ways and decisions regarding the use of such methodology are dependent on multiple factors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical oncologists should recognize that the true value of their interventions requires systematic and comprehensive examination of patient outcomes.
Authors: Mark D Williams; Lee Ann Braun; Liesl M Cooper; Joseph Johnston; Richard V Weiss; Rebecca L Qualy; Walter Linde-Zwirble Journal: Crit Care Date: 2004-07-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: A Barnadas; M Muñoz; M Margelí; J I Chacón; J Cassinello; S Antolin; E Adrover; M Ramos; E Carrasco; M A Jimeno; B Ojeda; X González; S González; M Constenla; J Florián; A Miguel; A Llombart; A Lluch; M Ruiz-Borrego; R Colomer; S Del Barco Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2019-12-21