Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2022

22-01-2022 | Review

Patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate postoperative quality of life in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review

Auteurs: Margot E. Lodge, Chris Moran, Adam D. J. Sutton, Hui-Ching Lee, Jugdeep K. Dhesi, Nadine E. Andrew, Darshini R. Ayton, David J. Hunter-Smith, Velandai K. Srikanth, David A. Snowdon

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2022

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

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.
vorige artikel Health-related quality of life among patients with gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of EQ-5D utility scores
volgende artikel How is your life? understanding the relative importance of life domains amongst older adults, and their associations with self-perceived COVID-19 impacts
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Shrime, M. G., Bickler, S. W., Alkire, B. C., & Mock, C. (2015). Global burden of surgical disease: An estimation from the provider perspective. The Lancet Global Health, 3, S8–S9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Weiser, T. G., Haynes, A. B., Molina, G., Lipsitz, S. R., Esquivel, M. M., Uribe-Leitz, T., Fu, R., Azad, T., Chao, T. E., & Berry, W. R. (2015). Estimate of the global volume of surgery in 2012: An assessment supporting improved health outcomes. The Lancet, 385, S11.CrossRef
3.
Prin, M., Guglielminotti, J., Mtalimanja, O., Li, G., & Charles, A. (2018). Emergency-to-elective surgery ratio: A global indicator of access to surgical care. World Journal of Surgery, 42(7), 1971–1980.PubMedCrossRef
4.
International Surgical Outcomes Study group. (2016). Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: Prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 117(5), 601–609.CrossRef
5.
Peden, C. J., & Grocott, M. P. (2014). National Research Strategies: What outcomes are important in peri-operative elderly care? Anaesthesia, 69(Suppl 1), 61–69.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Myles, P. S., Boney, O., Botti, M., Cyna, A. M., Gan, T. J., Jensen, M. P., Kehlet, H., Kurz, A., De Oliveira, G. S., Jr., Peyton, P., Sessler, D. I., Tramer, M. R., Wu, C. L., St, E. P. C. G., Myles, P., Grocott, M., Biccard, B., Blazeby, J., Boney, O., Chan, M., et al. (2018). Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: Patient comfort. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 120(4), 705–711.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Moonesinghe, S. R., Jackson, A. I. R., Boney, O., Stevenson, N., Chan, M. T. V., Cook, T. M., Lane-Fall, M., Kalkman, C., Neuman, M. D., Nilsson, U., Shulman, M., Myles, P. S., et al. (2019). Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative: Patient-centred outcomes. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 123(5), 664–670.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Rajabiyazdi, F., Alam, R., Pal, A., Montanez, J., Law, S., Pecorelli, N., Watanabe, Y., Chiavegato, L. D., Falconi, M., Hirano, S., Mayo, N. E., Lee, L., Feldman, L. S., & Fiore, J. F., Jr. (2021). Understanding the meaning of recovery to patients undergoing abdominal surgery. JAMA Surgery., 156, 758.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration; 2009.
10.
Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. British Medical Journal, 346, f167.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Fiore, J. F., Jr., Figueiredo, S., Balvardi, S., Lee, L., Nauche, B., Landry, T., Mayo, N. E., & Feldman, L. S. (2018). How do we value postoperative recovery?: A systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery. Annals of Surgery, 267(4), 656–669.PubMedCrossRef
12.
13.
WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.CrossRef
14.
World Health Organization. (1947). The constitution of the world health organization. WHO Chronicle, 1, 29.
15.
Urbach, D. R. (2005). Measuring quality of life after surgery. Surgical Innovation, 12(2), 161–165.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
20.
Mangione, C. M., Goldman, L., Orav, E. J., Marcantonio, E. R., Pedan, A., Ludwig, L. E., Donaldson, M. C., Sugarbaker, D. J., Poss, R., & Lee, T. H. (1997). Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 12(11), 686–697.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Antonescu, I., Carli, F., Mayo, N. E., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). Validation of the SF-36 as a measure of postoperative recovery after colorectal surgery. Surgical Endoscopy, 28(11), 3168–3178.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1159–1170.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
McHorney, C. A., Ware, J. E., Jr., & Raczek, A. E. (1993). The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Medical Care, 31, 247–263.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Cohen Ventura, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. ProQuest. Taylor & Francis Group.
25.
Bowyer, A., & Royse, C. F. (2016). Postoperative recovery and outcomes: What are we measuring and for whom? Anaesthesia, 71, 72–77.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Lee, L., Tran, T., Mayo, N. E., Carli, F., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). What does it really mean to “recover” from an operation? Surgery, 155(2), 211–216.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Lee, L., Mata, J., Augustin, B. R., Carli, F., Morin, N., Latimer, E., & Feldman, L. S. (2014). A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery. The Journal of Surgical Research, 190(1), 79–86.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Lee, L., Elfassy, N., Li, C., Latimer, E., Liberman, A. S., Charlebois, P., Stein, B., Carli, F., Fried, G. M., & Feldman, L. S. (2013). Valuing postoperative recovery: Validation of the SF-6D health-state utility. The Journal of Surgical Research, 184(1), 108–114.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Harvie, H. S., Honeycutt, A. A., Neuwahl, S. J., Barber, M. D., Richter, H. E., Visco, A. G., Sung, V. W., Shepherd, J. P., Rogers, R. G., Jakus-Waldman, S., & Mazloomdoost, D. (2019). Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 220(3), 265.e261-265.e211.CrossRef
30.
Hörchner, R., & Tuinebreijer, W. (1999). Improvement of physical functioning of morbidly obese patients who have undergone a Lap-Band operation: One-year study. Obesity Surgery, 9(4), 399–402.PubMedCrossRef
31.
32.
Frick, A. C., Ridgeway, B., Ellerkmann, M., Karram, M. M., Paraiso, M. F., Walters, M. D., & Barber, M. D. (2010). Comparison of responsiveness of validated outcome measures after surgery for stress urinary incontinence. Journal of Urology, 184(5), 2013–2017.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Bingener, J., Sloan, J. A., Seisler, D. K., McConico, A. L., Skaran, P. E., Farley, D. R., & Truty, M. J. (2015). PROMIS for laparoscopy. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 19(5), 917–926.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
34.
35.
Chiarotto, A., Terwee, C. B., Kamper, S. J., Boers, M., & Ostelo, R. W. (2018). Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 102, 23–37.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Gagnier, J. J. (2017). Patient reported outcomes in orthopaedics. Journal of Orthopaedic Research, 35(10), 2098–2108.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. The Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.CrossRef
39.
Strickland, L. H., Hamilton, T. W., Jenkinson, C. C., Murray, D. W., & Pandit, H. G. (2016). Patient-reported outcome measure for early postoperative recovery following lower limb arthroplasty: A systematic review. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 31(12), 2933–2940.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Herrera, F. J., Wong, J., & Chung, F. (2007). A systematic review of postoperative recovery outcomes measurements after ambulatory surgery. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 105(1), 63–69.CrossRef
41.
Pusic, A. L., Chen, C. M., Cano, S., Klassen, A., McCarthy, C., Collins, E. D., & Cordeiro, P. G. (2007). Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 120(4), 823–829.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Protopapa, E., van der Meulen, J., Moore, C. M., & Smith, S. C. (2017). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for men who have radical surgery for prostate cancer: A conceptual review of existing instruments. BJU International, 120(4), 468–481.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Kleif, J., Waage, J., Christensen, K. B., & Gögenur, I. (2018). Systematic review of the QoR-15 score, a patient: Reported outcome measure measuring quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 120(1), 28–36.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Schifferdecker, K. E., Yount, S. E., Kaiser, K., Adachi-Mejia, A., Cella, D., Carluzzo, K. L., Eisenstein, A., Kallen, M. A., Greene, G. J., Eton, D. T., & Fisher, E. S. (2018). A method to create a standardized generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome measure for patient care and healthcare improvement. Quality of Life Research, 27(2), 367–378.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Group, & T. E. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
46.
Ware, J. E., Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate postoperative quality of life in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review
Auteurs
Margot E. Lodge
Chris Moran
Adam D. J. Sutton
Hui-Ching Lee
Jugdeep K. Dhesi
Nadine E. Andrew
Darshini R. Ayton
David J. Hunter-Smith
Velandai K. Srikanth
David A. Snowdon
Publicatiedatum
22-01-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03071-1

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2022

Quality of Life Research 8/2022 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The effect of polypharmacy on quality of life in adult patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in the United States

OriginalPaper

How is your life? understanding the relative importance of life domains amongst older adults, and their associations with self-perceived COVID-19 impacts

Review

Health-related quality of life among patients with gallstone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of EQ-5D utility scores

OriginalPaper

Clinical utility of PTSD, resilience, sleep, and blast as risk factors to predict poor neurobehavioral functioning following traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal study in U.S. military service members

Correction

Correction to: Time to deterioration of patient-reported outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: exploring different definitions

OriginalPaper

If it’s information, it’s not “bias”: a scoping review and proposed nomenclature for future response-shift research