Alexander T Hawkins1, Russell L Rothman2, Timothy M Geiger1, Juan R Canedo2, Kamren Edwards-Hollingsworth1, David C LaNeve1, David F Penson3,4. 1. Department of General Surgery, Section of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 3. Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. GRECC, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, Tennessee.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures to support value-based care in colorectal surgery. To draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, measures with robust measurement properties are required. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery. DATA SOURCES: Three major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery. STUDY SELECTION: Articles that used patient-reported outcome measures as outcome for colorectal surgical intervention in a comparative effectiveness analysis were included. Exclusion criteria included articles older than 11 years, non-English language, age <18 years, fewer than 40 patients, case reports, review articles, and studies without comparison. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2018, 368 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. These studies used 165 distinct patient-reported outcome measures. Thirty were used 5 or more times and were selected for quality assessment. Overall, the measures were generally high quality, with 21 (70%) scoring ≥14 on an 18-point scale. Notable weaknesses included management of missing data (14%) and description of literacy level (0%). LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its use of original articles for quality assessment. Measures were selected for quality analysis based on frequency of use rather than other factors, such as impact of the article or number of patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcome measures are widely used in colorectal research. There was a wide range of measures available, and many were used only once. The most frequently used measures are generally high quality, but a majority lack details on how to deal with missing data and information on literacy levels. As the use of patient-reported outcome measures to assess colorectal surgical intervention increases, researchers and practitioners need to become more knowledgeable about the measures available and their quality.
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Larissa K Temple; Jennifer Bacik; Salvatore G Savatta; Lester Gottesman; Philip B Paty; Martin R Weiser; José G Guillem; Bruce D Minsky; Michelle Kalman; Howard T Thaler; Deborah Schrag; W Douglas Wong Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Roel Bakx; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Frans J Oort; Willem F van Tets; Willem A Bemelman; J Frederik M Slors; J Jan B van Lanschot Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2004-09-22 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: R N Whistance; T Conroy; W Chie; A Costantini; O Sezer; M Koller; C D Johnson; S A Pilkington; J Arraras; E Ben-Josef; A M Pullyblank; P Fayers; J M Blazeby Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noah J Harrison; Molly M Ford; Erin M Wolf Horrell; Michael Feng; Fei Ye; Kevin C Zhang; Alexander T Hawkins Journal: Surgery Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 4.348
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Russell Rothman; Timothy M Geiger; Kemberlee R Bonnet; Matthew G Mutch; Scott E Regenbogen; David G Schlundt; David F Penson Journal: Ann Surg Open Date: 2022-05-04
Authors: Jacob Rosenberg; Birthe Thing Oggesen; Marie Louise Sjødin Hamberg; Anne Kjaergaard Danielsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.359