Vanessa L Kronzer1, Michelle R Jerry2, Arbi Ben Abdallah1, Troy S Wildes1, Sherry L McKinnon1, Anshuman Sharma1, Michael S Avidan3. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8054, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, 534 Canton Street, Canton, MI, 48188, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8054, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. avidanm@anest.wustl.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our main objective was to compare the change in a validated quality of life measure to a global assessment measure. The secondary objectives were to estimate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the change in quality of life by surgical specialty. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 7902 adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Changes in the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), composed of a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS), were calculated using preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. The latter also contained a global assessment question for quality of life. We compared PCS and MCS to the global assessment using descriptive statistics and weighted kappa. MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach. Analyses were pre-specified and registered (NCT02771964). RESULTS: By the change in VR-12 scores, an equal proportion of patients experienced improvement and deterioration in quality of life (28% for PCS, 25% for MCS). In contrast, by the global assessment measure, 61% reported improvement, while only 10% reported deterioration. Agreement with the global assessment was slight for both PCS (kappa = 0.20, 57% matched) and MCS (kappa = 0.10, 54% matched). The MCID for the overall VR-12 score was approximately 2.5 points. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery showed the most improvement in quality of life measures, while patients undergoing gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary or urologic surgery showed the most deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective global quality of life report does not agree well with a validated quality of life instrument, perhaps due to patient over-optimism.
PURPOSE: Our main objective was to compare the change in a validated quality of life measure to a global assessment measure. The secondary objectives were to estimate the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and to describe the change in quality of life by surgical specialty. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 7902 adult patients undergoing elective surgery. Changes in the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12), composed of a physical component summary (PCS) and a mental component summary (MCS), were calculated using preoperative and postoperative questionnaires. The latter also contained a global assessment question for quality of life. We compared PCS and MCS to the global assessment using descriptive statistics and weighted kappa. MCID was calculated using an anchor-based approach. Analyses were pre-specified and registered (NCT02771964). RESULTS: By the change in VR-12 scores, an equal proportion of patients experienced improvement and deterioration in quality of life (28% for PCS, 25% for MCS). In contrast, by the global assessment measure, 61% reported improvement, while only 10% reported deterioration. Agreement with the global assessment was slight for both PCS (kappa = 0.20, 57% matched) and MCS (kappa = 0.10, 54% matched). The MCID for the overall VR-12 score was approximately 2.5 points. Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery showed the most improvement in quality of life measures, while patients undergoing gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary or urologic surgery showed the most deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Subjective global quality of life report does not agree well with a validated quality of life instrument, perhaps due to patient over-optimism.
Entities:
Keywords:
Elective surgical procedures; Minimum clinically important difference (MCID); Outcome assessment; Patient-reported outcomes; Quality of life
Authors: Dylan M Smith; Ryan L Sherriff; Laura Damschroder; George Loewenstein; Peter A Ubel Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Vic Velanovich; Jason Younga; Varun Bhandarkar; Nathan Marshall; Patrick McLaren; Jennifer Ritz; Ilan Rubinfeld Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: C M Mangione; L Goldman; E J Orav; E R Marcantonio; A Pedan; L E Ludwig; M C Donaldson; D J Sugarbaker; R Poss; T H Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Leah Y Carreon; Kelly R Bratcher; Chelsea E Canan; Lauren O Burke; Mladen Djurasovic; Steven D Glassman Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2012-11-16
Authors: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michael T Nolte; James M Parrish; Nathaniel W Jenkins; Elliot D K Cha; Conor P Lynch; Caroline N Jadczak; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Nadia M Hrynewycz; Kern Singh Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: Bianka Saravana-Bawan; Lindsey M Warkentin; Arto Ohinmaa; Adrian S Wagg; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc; Raj S Padwal; Fiona Clement; Rachel G Khadaroo Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2021-04-29
Authors: Jannat M Khan; Dennis McKinney; Bryce A Basques; Philip K Louie; Deven Carroll; Justin Paul; Arya Varthi; Sravisht Iyer; Howard S An Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-11-18
Authors: Liam T Kane; Surena Namdari; Otho R Plummer; Pedro Beredjiklian; Alexander Vaccaro; Joseph A Abboud Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2020-03-12
Authors: Ines Buchholz; You-Shan Feng; Maresa Buchholz; Lewis E Kazis; Thomas Kohlmann Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Amrita Aranake-Chrisinger; Jenny Zhao Cheng; Maxwell R Muench; Rose Tang; Angela Mickle; Hannah Maybrier; Nan Lin; Troy Wildes; Eric Lenze; Michael Simon Avidan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 2.692