D A Patel1, R Sharda1, K L Hovis2, E E Nichols2, N Sathe3, D F Penson4, I D Feurer5, M L McPheeters3, M F Vaezi1, David O Francis6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. 2. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. 3. Department of Health Policy and the Evidence-Based Practice Center. 4. Departments of Urological Surgery, Health Policy, and Medicine and the Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research. 5. Departments of Biostatistics and Surgery and the Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research. 6. Department of Otolaryngology and the Evidence-Based Practice Center and the Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are commonly used to capture patient experience with dysphagia and to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Inappropriate application can lead to distorted results in clinical studies. A systematic review of the literature on dysphagia-related PRO measures was performed to (1) identify all currently available measures and (2) to evaluate each for the presence of important measurement properties that would affect their applicability. DESIGN: MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument database were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and dysphagia. Three independent investigators performed abstract and full text reviews. Each study meeting criteria was evaluated using an 18-item checklist developed a priori that assessed multiple domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (6) scoring and interpretation, and (7) burden and presentation. RESULTS: Of 4950 abstracts reviewed, a total of 34 dysphagia-related PRO measures (publication year 1987-2014) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Several PRO measures were of high quality (MADS for achalasia, SWAL-QOL and SSQ for oropharyngeal dysphagia, PROMIS-GI for general dysphagia, EORTC-QLQ-OG25 for esophageal cancer, ROMP-swallowing for Parkinson's Disease, DSQ-EoE for eosinophilic esophagitis, and SOAL for total laryngectomy-related dysphagia). In all, 17 met at least one criterion per domain. Thematic deficiencies in current measures were evident including: (1) direct patient involvement in content development, (2) empirically justified dimensionality, (3) demonstrable responsiveness to change, (4) plan for interpreting missing responses, and (5) literacy level assessment. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive systematic review assessing developmental properties of all available dysphagia-related PRO measures. We identified several instruments with robust measurement properties in multiple diseases including achalasia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, post-surgical dysphagia, esophageal cancer, and dysphagia related to neurological diseases. Findings herein can assist clinicians and researchers in making more informed decisions in selecting the most fundamentally sound PRO measure for a given clinical, research, or quality initiative.
OBJECTIVE:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are commonly used to capture patient experience with dysphagia and to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Inappropriate application can lead to distorted results in clinical studies. A systematic review of the literature on dysphagia-related PRO measures was performed to (1) identify all currently available measures and (2) to evaluate each for the presence of important measurement properties that would affect their applicability. DESIGN: MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument database were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and dysphagia. Three independent investigators performed abstract and full text reviews. Each study meeting criteria was evaluated using an 18-item checklist developed a priori that assessed multiple domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (6) scoring and interpretation, and (7) burden and presentation. RESULTS: Of 4950 abstracts reviewed, a total of 34 dysphagia-related PRO measures (publication year 1987-2014) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Several PRO measures were of high quality (MADS for achalasia, SWAL-QOL and SSQ for oropharyngeal dysphagia, PROMIS-GI for general dysphagia, EORTC-QLQ-OG25 for esophageal cancer, ROMP-swallowing for Parkinson's Disease, DSQ-EoE for eosinophilic esophagitis, and SOAL for total laryngectomy-related dysphagia). In all, 17 met at least one criterion per domain. Thematic deficiencies in current measures were evident including: (1) direct patient involvement in content development, (2) empirically justified dimensionality, (3) demonstrable responsiveness to change, (4) plan for interpreting missing responses, and (5) literacy level assessment. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive systematic review assessing developmental properties of all available dysphagia-related PRO measures. We identified several instruments with robust measurement properties in multiple diseases including achalasia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, post-surgical dysphagia, esophageal cancer, and dysphagia related to neurological diseases. Findings herein can assist clinicians and researchers in making more informed decisions in selecting the most fundamentally sound PRO measure for a given clinical, research, or quality initiative.
Authors: Colleen A McHorney; Joanne Robbins; Kevin Lomax; John C Rosenbek; Kimberly Chignell; Amy E Kramer; D Earl Bricker Journal: Dysphagia Date: 2002 Impact factor: 3.438
Authors: J M Blazeby; T Conroy; E Hammerlid; P Fayers; O Sezer; M Koller; J Arraras; A Bottomley; C W Vickery; P L Etienne; D Alderson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Brittany N Krekeler; Elizabeth Wendt; Cameron Macdonald; Jason Orne; David O Francis; Rebecca Sippel; Nadine P Connor Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Elvira L Vos; Masaya Nakauchi; Marinela Capanu; Bernard J Park; Daniel G Coit; Daniela Molena; Samuel S Yoon; David R Jones; Vivian E Strong Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 6.532