Julio F Fiore1,2, Sabrina Figueiredo3,4, Saba Balvardi1,2, Lawrence Lee1,2, Bénédicte Nauche5, Tara Landry5, Nancy E Mayo3,4, Liane S Feldman2. 1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 3. School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. Medical Libraries, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To appraise the level of evidence supporting the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the context of postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using PROMs to support value-based care in abdominal surgery; however, to draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, PROMs with robust measurement properties are required. METHODS: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for studies focused on the measurement properties of PROMs in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using the consensus-based COSMIN checklist. Evidence supporting the measurement properties of each PROM was synthetized according to standardized criteria and compared against the International Society of Quality of Life Research minimum standards for the selection of PROMs for outcomes research. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies evaluating 22 PROMs [12 focused on nonspecific surgical populations (55%), 4 focused on abdominal surgery (18%), and 6 generic PROMs (27%)]. The great majority of the studies (74%) received only poor or fair quality ratings. Measurement properties of PROMs were predominantly supported by limited or unknown evidence. None of the PROMs fulfilled International Society of Quality of Life Research's minimum standards, hindering specific recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence supporting the measurement properties of existing PROMs used in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. This precludes the use of these PROMs to support value-based surgical care. Further research is required to bridge this major knowledge gap. REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42014014349.
OBJECTIVE: To appraise the level of evidence supporting the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the context of postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using PROMs to support value-based care in abdominal surgery; however, to draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, PROMs with robust measurement properties are required. METHODS: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for studies focused on the measurement properties of PROMs in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using the consensus-based COSMIN checklist. Evidence supporting the measurement properties of each PROM was synthetized according to standardized criteria and compared against the International Society of Quality of Life Research minimum standards for the selection of PROMs for outcomes research. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies evaluating 22 PROMs [12 focused on nonspecific surgical populations (55%), 4 focused on abdominal surgery (18%), and 6 generic PROMs (27%)]. The great majority of the studies (74%) received only poor or fair quality ratings. Measurement properties of PROMs were predominantly supported by limited or unknown evidence. None of the PROMs fulfilled International Society of Quality of Life Research's minimum standards, hindering specific recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence supporting the measurement properties of existing PROMs used in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. This precludes the use of these PROMs to support value-based surgical care. Further research is required to bridge this major knowledge gap. REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42014014349.
Authors: Nicolò Pecorelli; Saba Balvardi; A Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Franco Carli; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Roshni Alam; Sabrina M Figueiredo; Saba Balvardi; Bénédicte Nauche; Tara Landry; Lawrence Lee; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Margot E Lodge; Chris Moran; Adam D J Sutton; Hui-Ching Lee; Jugdeep K Dhesi; Nadine E Andrew; Darshini R Ayton; David J Hunter-Smith; Velandai K Srikanth; David A Snowdon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Pasithorn A Suwanabol; Yun Li; Paul Abrahamse; Ana C De Roo; Joceline V Vu; Maria J Silveira; Lona Mody; Justin B Dimick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ana Paula B S Etges; Luciana Paula Cadore Stefani; Dionisios Vrochides; Junaid Nabi; Carisi Anne Polanczyk; Richard D Urman Journal: J Health Econ Outcomes Res Date: 2021-06-24
Authors: Sarah Huepenbecker; Robert Tyler Hillman; Maria D Iniesta; Tsun Chen; Katherine Cain; Gabriel Mena; Javier Lasala; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta Williams; Jolyn S Taylor; Karen H Lu; Pedro T Ramirez; Larissa A Meyer Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.661
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Russell L Rothman; Timothy M Geiger; Juan R Canedo; Kamren Edwards-Hollingsworth; David C LaNeve; David F Penson Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.412