C E E de Vries1, M C Kalff1, C A C Prinsen2, K D Coulman3, C den Haan4, R Welbourn5, J M Blazeby3,6, J M Morton7, B A van Wagensveld1. 1. Department of Surgery, OLVG West, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Centre for Surgical Research, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 4. Medical Library, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Bariatric and Upper GI Surgery, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK. 6. Division of Surgery, Head and Neck, University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK. 7. Section of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D). RESULTS: Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D). CONCLUSION: The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D). RESULTS: Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D). CONCLUSION: The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.
Authors: Claire E E de Vries; Caroline B Terwee; May Al Nawas; Bart A van Wagensveld; Ignace M C Janssen; Ronald S L Liem; Simon W Nienhuijs; Ricardo V Cohen; Elisabeth F C van Rossum; Wendy A Brown; Amir A Ghaferi; Johan Ottosson; Karen D Coulman; Tarissa B Z Petry; Stephanie Sogg; Lisa West-Smith; Jason C G Halford; Ximena Ramos Salas; John B Dixon; Salman Al-Sabah; Wei-Jei Lee; John Roger Andersen; Stuart W Flint; Maarten M Hoogbergen; Brooke Backman; Ellen Govers; Nadya Isack; Caroline Clay; Susie Birney; Maureen Gunn; Paul Masterson; Audrey Roberts; Jacky Nesbitt; Riccardo Meloni; Sarah le Brocq; Sandra de Blaeij; Christina Kraaijveld; Floor van der Steen; Bibian Visser; Petra Hamers; Valerie M Monpellier Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2022-05-29 Impact factor: 10.867
Authors: Farima Dalaei; Claire E E de Vries; Lotte Poulsen; Manraj N Kaur; André Pfob; Danny Mou; Amalie L Jacobsen; Jussi P Repo; Rosa Salzillo; Jakub Opyrchal; Anne F Klassen; Jens Ahm Sørensen; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Clin Obes Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Amalie L Jacobsen; Claire E E DeVries; Lotte Poulsen; Danny Mou; Anne F Klassen; Andrea L Pusic; Dennis J S Makarawung; Marinus J Wiezer; Ruben N van Veen; Jens A Sørensen Journal: Clin Obes Date: 2022-05-16
Authors: Daan Geerards; Lisa van den Berg; Andrea L Pusic; Maarten M Hoogbergen; Anne F Klassen; René R W J van der Hulst; Chris J Sidey-Gibbons Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 4.147