Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Measures of Narcolepsy: The Need for Better Assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Study objectives

Narcolepsy, a chronic disorder of the central nervous system, is clinically characterized by a symptom pentad that includes excessive daytime sleepiness, cataplexy, sleep paralysis, hypnopompic/hypnagogic hallucinations, and disrupted nighttime sleep. Ideally, screening and diagnosis instruments that assist physicians in evaluating a patient for type 1 or type 2 narcolepsy would be brief, easy for patients to understand and physicians to score, and would identify or rule out the need for electrophysiological testing.

Methods

A search of the literature was conducted to review patient-reported measures used for the assessment of narcolepsy, mainly in clinical trials, with the goal of summarizing existing scales and identifying areas that may require additional screening questions and clinical practice scales.

Results

Of the seven scales reviewed, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale continues to be an important outcome measure to screen adults for excessive daytime sleepiness, which may be associated with narcolepsy. Several narcolepsy-specific scales have demonstrated utility, such as the Ullanlinna Narcolepsy Scale, Swiss Narcolepsy Scale, and Narcolepsy Symptom Assessment Questionnaire, but further validation is required.

Conclusions

Although the narcolepsy-specific scales currently in use may identify type 1 narcolepsy, there are no validated questionnaires to identify type 2 narcolepsy. Thus, there remains a need for short, easily understood, and well-validated instruments that can be readily used in clinical practice to distinguish narcolepsy subtypes, as well as other hypersomnias, and for assessing symptoms of these conditions during treatment.

SUBMITTER: Kallweit U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5406952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Project description:Presently, there is no recommendation on how to assess functional status of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. This study aimed to summarize and systematically evaluate these measures.Studies on measures of COPD patients' functional status published before the end of January 2015 were included using a search filters in PubMed and Web of Science, screening reference lists of all included studies, and cross-checking against some relevant reviews. After title, abstract, and main text screening, the remaining was appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) 4-point checklist. All measures from these studies were rated according to best-evidence synthesis and the best-rated measures were selected.A total of 6447 records were found and 102 studies were reviewed, suggesting 44 performance-based measures and 14 patient-reported measures. The majority of the studies focused on internal consistency, reliability, and hypothesis testing, but only 21% of them employed good or excellent methodology. Their common weaknesses include lack of checks for unidimensionality, inadequate sample sizes, no prior hypotheses, and improper methods. On average, patient-reported measures perform better than performance-based measures. The best-rated patient-reported measures are functional performance inventory (FPI), functional performance inventory short form (FPI-SF), living with COPD questionnaire (LCOPD), COPD activity rating scale (CARS), University of Cincinnati dyspnea questionnaire (UCDQ), shortness of breath with daily activities (SOBDA), and short-form pulmonary functional status scale (PFSS-11), and the best-rated performance-based measures are exercise testing: 6-minute walk test (6MWT), endurance treadmill test, and usual 4-meter gait speed (usual 4MGS).Further research is needed to evaluate the reliability and validity of performance-based measures since present studies failed to provide convincing evidence. FPI, FPI-SF, LCOPD, CARS, UCDQ, SOBDA, PFSS-11, 6MWT, endurance treadmill test, and usual 4MGS performed well and are preferable to assess functional status of COPD patients.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in clinical quality registries, for people with cutaneous melanoma, to inform a new Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry; and describe opportunities and challenges of routine PROM/PREM collection, especially in primary care.DesignSystematic review.Primary and secondary outcome measuresWhich PROMs and PREMs are used in clinical quality registries for people with cutaneous melanoma, how they are collected, frequency of collection, participant recruitment methods and funding models for each registry.Results1134 studies were identified from MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects databases and TUFTS Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, alongside grey literature, from database inception to 5th February 2020. Following screening, 14 studies were included, identifying four relevant registries: Dutch Melanoma Registry, Adelphi Real-World Disease-Specific Programme (Melanoma), Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship Registry, and Cancer Experience Registry. These used seven PROMs: EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) and FACT-Melanoma (FACT-M), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Cancer 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Fatigue Assessment Scale Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System-29 and one PREM; EORTC QLQ-Information Module 26. PROMs/PREMs in registries were reported to improve transparency of care; facilitate clinical auditing for quality assessment; enable cost-effectiveness analyses and create large-scale research platforms. Challenges included resource burden for data entry and potential collection bias toward younger, more affluent respondents. Feedback from patients with melanoma highlighted the relevance of PROMs/PREMs in assessing patient outcomes and patient experiences.ConclusionsClinical registries indicate PROMs/PREMs for melanoma care can be incorporated and address important gaps, however cost and collection bias may limit generalisability.Prospero registration numberCRD42018086737.

Project description:BackgroundWith the rise of digital health technologies and telemedicine, the need for evidence-based evaluation is growing. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are recommended as an essential part of the evaluation of telemedicine. For the first time, a systematic review has been conducted to investigate the use of PROMs and PREMs in the evaluation studies of telemedicine covering all application types and medical purposes.ObjectiveThis study investigates the following research questions: in which scenarios are PROMs and PREMs collected for evaluation purposes, which PROM and PREM outcome domains have been covered and how often, which outcome measurement instruments have been used and how often, does the selection and quantity of PROMs and PREMs differ between study types and application types, and has the use of PROMs and PREMs changed over time.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search of the MEDLINE and Embase databases and included studies published from inception until April 2, 2020. We included studies evaluating telemedicine with patients as the main users; these studies reported PROMs and PREMs within randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, noncontrolled trials, and feasibility trials in English and German.ResultsOf the identified 2671 studies, 303 (11.34%) were included; of the 303 studies, 67 (22.1%) were feasibility studies, 70 (23.1%) were noncontrolled trials, 20 (6.6%) were controlled trials, and 146 (48.2%) were randomized controlled trials. Health-related quality of life (n=310; mean 1.02, SD 1.05), emotional function (n=244; mean 0.81, SD 1.18), and adherence (n=103; mean 0.34, SD 0.53) were the most frequently assessed outcome domains. Self-developed PROMs were used in 21.4% (65/303) of the studies, and self-developed PREMs were used in 22.3% (68/303). PROMs (n=884) were assessed more frequently than PREMs (n=234). As the evidence level of the studies increased, the number of PROMs also increased (τ=-0.45), and the number of PREMs decreased (τ=0.35). Since 2000, not only has the number of studies using PROMs and PREMs increased, but the level of evidence and the number of outcome measurement instruments used have also increased, with the number of PREMs permanently remaining at a lower level.ConclusionsThere have been increasingly more studies, particularly high-evidence studies, which use PROMs and PREMs to evaluate telemedicine. PROMs have been used more frequently than PREMs. With the increasing maturity stage of telemedicine applications and higher evidence level, the use of PROMs increased in line with the recommendations of evaluation guidelines. Health-related quality of life and emotional function were measured in almost all the studies. Simultaneously, health literacy as a precondition for using the application adequately, alongside proper training and guidance, has rarely been reported. Further efforts should be pursued to standardize PROM and PREM collection in evaluation studies of telemedicine.

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to assess the use and quality of patient-reported outcome measures in colorectal surgery.Data sourcesThree major databases were searched for studies using patient-reported outcome measures in the context of colorectal surgery.Study selectionArticles 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 measuresThis was a quality assessment using a previously reported checklist of psychometric properties.ResultsFrom 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%).LimitationsThe 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.ConclusionsPatient-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.