Margot E Lodge1,2, Chris Moran3,4,5, Adam D J Sutton6,7, Hui-Ching Lee8, Jugdeep K Dhesi9,10, Nadine E Andrew1, Darshini R Ayton11, David J Hunter-Smith12, Velandai K Srikanth1,8, David A Snowdon1,13. 1. Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Health of Older People, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. chris.moran@monash.edu. 4. Health of Older People, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. chris.moran@monash.edu. 5. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. chris.moran@monash.edu. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 7. Department of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 8. Department of Geriatric Medicine, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 9. Department of Ageing and Health, Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, London, UK. 11. Health and Social Care Unit, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 12. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Hand Surgery, Peninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 13. Academic Unit, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To appraise the measurement properties of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring postoperative quality of life in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PROMs administered after elective abdominal surgery. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature database, and the Cochrane Library from earliest available dates to July 24, 2021, using relevant search terms. Articles were included if they reported assessment of measurement properties of a generic PROM/s measuring postoperative quality of life in adults who had undergone elective abdominal surgery. We used the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist to assess methodological quality. We synthesized the data and used the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 12,121 identified articles, nine articles assessing five PROMs (SF-6D, EQ-5D, SF-36, SF-12, PROMIS-10) met inclusion criteria. Measurement properties assessed included internal consistency (n = 2), construct validity (n = 5), and responsiveness (n = 8). Two PROMs had high quality evidence for a single measurement property each. The SF-6D demonstrated high quality evidence for responsiveness and the EQ-5D had high quality evidence for construct validity. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the choice of a specific generic PROM to evaluate quality of life following elective abdominal surgery. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the current limitations in knowledge of the measurement properties of available PROMs.
PURPOSE: To appraise the measurement properties of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measuring postoperative quality of life in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of PROMs administered after elective abdominal surgery. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature database, and the Cochrane Library from earliest available dates to July 24, 2021, using relevant search terms. Articles were included if they reported assessment of measurement properties of a generic PROM/s measuring postoperative quality of life in adults who had undergone elective abdominal surgery. We used the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist to assess methodological quality. We synthesized the data and used the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 12,121 identified articles, nine articles assessing five PROMs (SF-6D, EQ-5D, SF-36, SF-12, PROMIS-10) met inclusion criteria. Measurement properties assessed included internal consistency (n = 2), construct validity (n = 5), and responsiveness (n = 8). Two PROMs had high quality evidence for a single measurement property each. The SF-6D demonstrated high quality evidence for responsiveness and the EQ-5D had high quality evidence for construct validity. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to support the choice of a specific generic PROM to evaluate quality of life following elective abdominal surgery. Clinicians and researchers should be aware of the current limitations in knowledge of the measurement properties of available PROMs.
Authors: S R Moonesinghe; A I R Jackson; O Boney; N Stevenson; M T V Chan; T M Cook; M Lane-Fall; C Kalkman; M D Neuman; U Nilsson; M Shulman; P S Myles Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Julio F Fiore; Sabrina Figueiredo; Saba Balvardi; Lawrence Lee; Bénédicte Nauche; Tara Landry; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P S Myles; O Boney; M Botti; A M Cyna; T J Gan; M P Jensen; H Kehlet; A Kurz; G S De Oliveira; P Peyton; D I Sessler; M R Tramèr; C L Wu; Paul Myles; Michael Grocott; Bruce Biccard; Jane Blazeby; Oliver Boney; Matthew Chan; Elisabeth Diouf; Lee Fleisher; Cor Kalkman; Andrea Kurz; Ramani Moonesinghe; Duminda Wijeysundera Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 9.166