Literature DB >> 16442425

Evaluating surgical outcomes.

Simon Bergman1, Liane S Feldman, Jeffrey S Barkun.   

Abstract

The study of outcomes has become essential for guiding quality of-care assessment and for clinical research. In this article, the properties and process of patient outcomes measurement are described. The limitations of traditional outcomes are discussed and contrasted with the emerging concept of "patient-centered"outcomes, measured by validated instruments to assess the effects of surgical interventions on health-related quality of life, functional status, pain, and patient satisfaction. The strengths and weaknesses of several measurement tools used in the surgical literature are evaluated. Finally, the authors introduce "composite outcomes" as a reflection of the multidimensional nature of modern patient care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16442425     DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2005.10.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Clin North Am        ISSN: 0039-6109            Impact factor:   2.741


  8 in total

1.  Factors associated with failure of enhanced recovery programs after laparoscopic colon cancer surgery: a single-center retrospective study.

Authors:  Heung-Kwon Oh; Myong Hun Ihn; Il Tae Son; Jin Taek Park; Jaebong Lee; Duck-Woo Kim; Sung-Bum Kang
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Modified frailty index as a predictor of the long-term functional result in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Łukasz Pulik; Kaja Jaśkiewicz; Sylwia Sarzyńska; Paweł Małdyk; Paweł Łęgosz
Journal:  Reumatologia       Date:  2020-08-31

3.  Testing for heterogeneity among the components of a binary composite outcome in a clinical trial.

Authors:  Janice Pogue; Lehana Thabane; P J Devereaux; Salim Yusuf
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-06-07       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Assessment of physical function by subjective and objective methods in patients undergoing open gynecologic surgery.

Authors:  Xin Shelley Wang; Mona Kamal; Tsun Hsuan Chen; Qiuling Shi; Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez; Maria D Iniesta; Charles S Cleeland; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Larissa A Meyer
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2021-01-31       Impact factor: 5.482

5.  Minimal clinically important difference in postoperative recovery among patients with gastrointestinal cancer.

Authors:  Tsuyoshi Hara; Eisuke Kogure; Shinno Iijima; Yasuhisa Fukawa; Akira Kubo; Wataru Kakuda
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Predictive factors of return to work after hysterectomy: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Suzanne J Dedden; Esther V A Bouwsma; Peggy M A J Geomini; Marlies Y Bongers; Judith A F Huirne
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Using patient data to optimize an expert-based guideline on convalescence recommendations after gynecological surgery: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Esther V A Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; A Vonk Noordegraaf; Henrica C W de Vet; Judith A F Huirne
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 2.102

8.  Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Lisandra Megumi Arima; Leandro Castro Velasco; Romualdo Suzano Louzeiro Tiago
Journal:  Braz J Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.