Dataset Information

Outcomes and outcome measures reported in clinical studies of therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated oncological safety of TM, but poor and inconsistent reporting of quality-of-life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, often with non-validated measurement tools. Moreover, there is a paucity of patient-reported outcome measures. Standardisation of outcome reporting is required to enable study results to be compared and combined, for example, through core outcome set (COS) development. This systematic review aims to comprehensively describe the outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM, their respective outcome measures and the time points at which they were evaluated. The overall objective is to facilitate the development of a COS for TM.

Methods and analysis

A systematic review of clinical studies evaluating outcomes following TM will be completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following electronic databases have been searched from inception to 5 August 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Primary outcomes will include the number of reported outcomes of various types (clinical, aesthetic, functional, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness), whether these are patient-reported or clinician-reported, how outcomes are defined and the outcome measurement tool(s) used. The time point(s) at which outcomes were measured will be a secondary outcome. No studies will be excluded on the basis of methodological quality in order to generate a comprehensive list of reported outcomes and outcome measures; hence, risk of bias assessment is not required. The data will be described narratively. This protocol has been reported in line with PRISMA-Protocols.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not involve human or animal participants, hence ethical approval is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020200365.

SUBMITTER: Lee A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8211071 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) can struggle with burdensome symptoms and treatment regimens that negatively affect every aspect of their life. As physiological parameters can fail to capture these complications, the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has gained prominence. HRQOL can be measured using standardized patient questionnaires called patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Australian Cystic Fibrosis Data Registry (ACFDR) collects clinical data on adult and pediatric patients with CF. The incorporation of PROMs into the ACFDR would enable monitoring of HRQOL trends, benchmarking of HRQOL outcomes, and support of HRQOL research in CF. OBJECTIVE:Prior to incorporation of a PROM in the ACFDR, this systematic review was planned to evaluate whether any suitable PROMs are currently being used for CF. METHODS:This systematic review will be conducted in compliance with the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published between January 2009 and February 2019 on the use of PROMs to measure HRQOL in adult and pediatric patients with CF. Study designs such as observational studies, reviews and validation studies were included. Studies describing randomized controlled trials, dissertations, books, guideline statements, and abstracts were excluded. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A descriptive synthesis of the results will be undertaken in line with the outcomes of this study. RESULTS:As of July 2019, the search has been conducted and 4530 records were screened. After two phases of screening, 97 studies were included in the final review and subjected to data extraction. Reviewers are currently in the process of critical appraisal. CONCLUSIONS:This review will identify any PROM(s) that may be used to measure HRQOL in the ACFDR. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019126931; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=126931.

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: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.