Harry C Alexander1,2, Cindy H Nguyen2, Matthew R Moore1, Adam S Bartlett2,3, Jacqueline A Hannam1, Garth H Poole4, Alan F Merry5,6. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Department of Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Department of Surgery, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. a.merry@auckland.ac.nz. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. a.merry@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cholecystectomy; Laparoscopic; Outcome; Surgery
Authors: Harry C Alexander; Adam S Bartlett; Cameron I Wells; Jacqueline A Hannam; Matthew R Moore; Garth H Poole; Alan F Merry Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-04-09 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Peter B van den Boezem; Simone Velthuis; Harm J Lourens; Miguel A Cuesta; Colin Sietses Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: J M Blazeby; R Macefield; N S Blencowe; M Jacobs; A G K McNair; M Sprangers; S T Brookes Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-05-18 Impact factor: 6.939