Louise Marie Beelen1,2, Anne-Margreet van Dishoeck3, Elena Tsangaris4, Michelle Coriddi5, Joseph H Dayan5, Andrea L Pusic4, Anne Klassen6, Dalibor Vasilic3. 1. Department of Surgery, Patient-Reported Outcome, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. l.beelen@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.beelen@erasmusmc.nl. 3. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Patient-Reported Outcome, Value and Experience (PROVE) Center, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 6. McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lymphedema is a chronic and debilitating condition that affects many cancer survivors. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can give valuable insight into the impact of lymphedema on a patient's quality of life and can play an essential role in treatment decisions. This study aims to (1) identify PROMs used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with lymphedema; and (2) assess the quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify articles on lymphedema, quality of life, and PROMs. An overview was created of all PROMs used to assess HRQoL in patients with lymphedema. The methodological quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 235 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 200 described studies using one or more PROMs as an outcome measure in patients with lymphedema. The other 35 studies described the development and/or validation of a lymphedema-specific PROM. The COSMIN assessment demonstrated that none of these PROMs met all quality standards for development. CONCLUSION: The use of PROMs in lymphedema is increasing; however, based on our findings, we cannot fully support the use of any of the existing instruments. A well-developed lymphedema-specific PROM, based on patient input, is needed to gain better insight into the impact of this condition, and can be used to measure the effect of possible medical and surgical treatments.
BACKGROUND: Lymphedema is a chronic and debilitating condition that affects many cancer survivors. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can give valuable insight into the impact of lymphedema on a patient's quality of life and can play an essential role in treatment decisions. This study aims to (1) identify PROMs used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with lymphedema; and (2) assess the quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify articles on lymphedema, quality of life, and PROMs. An overview was created of all PROMs used to assess HRQoL in patients with lymphedema. The methodological quality of the lymphedema-specific PROMs was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 235 articles met the inclusion criteria, of which 200 described studies using one or more PROMs as an outcome measure in patients with lymphedema. The other 35 studies described the development and/or validation of a lymphedema-specific PROM. The COSMIN assessment demonstrated that none of these PROMs met all quality standards for development. CONCLUSION: The use of PROMs in lymphedema is increasing; however, based on our findings, we cannot fully support the use of any of the existing instruments. A well-developed lymphedema-specific PROM, based on patient input, is needed to gain better insight into the impact of this condition, and can be used to measure the effect of possible medical and surgical treatments.
Authors: B R Mirolo; I H Bunce; M Chapman; T Olsen; P Eliadis; J M Hennessy; L C Ward; L C Jones Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: L B Mokkink; H C W de Vet; C A C Prinsen; D L Patrick; J Alonso; L M Bouter; C B Terwee Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Elizabeth Gibbons; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: María Nieves Muñoz-Alcaraz; Luis A Pérula-de Torres; Antonio José Jiménez-Vílchez; Paula Rodríguez-Fernández; María Victoria Olmo-Carmona; María Teresa Muñoz-García; Presentación Jorge-Gutiérrez; Jesús Serrano-Merino; Esperanza Romero-Rodríguez; Lorena Rodríguez-Elena; Raquel Refusta-Ainaga; María Pilar Lahoz-Sánchez; Belén Miró-Palacios; Mayra Medrano-Cid; Rosa Magallón-Botaya; Mirian Santamaría-Peláez; Luis A Mínguez-Mínguez; Jerónimo J González-Bernal Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Michelle Coriddi; Leslie Kim; Leslie McGrath; Elizabeth Encarnacion; Nicholas Brereton; Yin Shen; Andrea V Barrio; Babak Mehrara; Joseph H Dayan Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 5.344