Dataset Information

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes after polytrauma - instruments and methods: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.

Design

Systematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.

Eligibility criteria

All original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18-75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.

Results

The search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.

Conclusions

There is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017060825.

SUBMITTER: Ritschel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8679059 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent events in health care reform have brought national attention to integrating patient experiences and expectations into quality metrics. Few studies have comprehensively evaluated the effect of patient expectations on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after surgery. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the available literature describing the relationship between patient expectations and postoperative PROs.MethodsWe performed a search of the literature published before November 1, 2012. Articles were included in the review if (1) primary data were presented, (2) patient expectations regarding a surgical procedure were measured, (3) PROs were measured, and (4) the relationship between patient expectations and PROs was specifically examined. PROs were categorized into 5 subgroups: Satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), disability, mood disorder, and pain. We examined each study to determine the relationship between patient expectations and PROs as well as study quality.ResultsFrom the initial literature search yielding 1,708 studies, 60 articles were included. Fulfillment of expectations was associated with improved PROs among 24 studies. Positive expectations were correlated with improved PROs for 28 studies (47%), and poorer PROs for 9 studies (15%). Eighteen studies reported that fulfillment of expectations was correlated with improved patient satisfaction, and 10 studies identified that positive expectations were correlated with improved postoperative. Finally, patients with positive preoperative expectations reported less pain (8 studies) and disability (15 studies) compared with patients with negative preoperative expectations.ConclusionPatient expectations are inconsistently correlated with PROs after surgery, and there is no accepted method to capture perioperative expectations. Future efforts to rigorously measure expectations and explore their influence on postoperative outcomes can inform clinicians and policymakers seeking to integrate PROs into measures of surgical quality.

Project description:BackgroundGaucher's disease (GD), a rare condition, represents the most common lysosomal storage disorder. The cardinal manifestations of GD are fatigue, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia, bone pain, and bone infarction, thereby culminating in a marked deterioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer valuable insights into the impact of GD on patients' QoL and symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify and analyze PROs and outcome measures in GD patients.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collections, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a mixed methods assessment tool.ResultsA total of 33 studies were identified, encompassing 24 distinct patient-reported outcome instruments, with the most frequently employed instrument being the SF-36. The study designs included eighteen cross-sectional studies, seven pre- and post-intervention investigations, three randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two qualitative inquiries, and one validation study. These studies explored diverse domains such as the QoL and cardinal symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, bleeding, cognition, social relationships, and psychological functioning) in patients with GD. Furthermore, significant attention was directed towards the appraisal of the therapeutic benefits of various interventions in patients with GD. A novel GD-specific instrument has also been developed, which has two applied versions: a 24-item variant for routine clinical monitoring and a 17-item form for use in clinical trials.ConclusionPROs have garnered increased attention and concern in the realm of GD. Despite this progress, it is noteworthy that the instruments used to measure PROs in GD are still predominantly generic instruments. While researchers have endeavored to develop and validate a disease-specific instrument, currently the use of this instrument is limited. Owing to several challenges, including the small number of patients, heterogeneity of the disease, and cross-regional discrepancies in study findings, GD poses substantial difficulties in the measurement of QoL and development of instruments. Consequently, patients with GD require more dependable measurement instruments that accurately reflect their QoL, efficacy of treatment, and facilitate healthcare decision-making.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving dialysis have poor health-related quality of life. Physical symptoms are highly prevalent among dialysis-dependent patients and play important roles in health-related quality of life. A range of symptom assessment tools have been used in dialysis-dependent patients, but there has been no previous systematic assessment of the existing symptom measures' content, validity, and reliability. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review of the literature. SETTINGS & POPULATION:Patients with ESRD on maintenance dialysis therapy. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES:Instruments with 3 or more physical symptoms previously used in dialysis-dependent patients and evidence of validity or reliability testing. INTERVENTION:Patient-reported physical symptom assessment instrument. OUTCOMES:Instrument symptom-related content, validity, and reliability. RESULTS:From 3,148 screened abstracts, 89 full-text articles were eligible for review. After article exclusion and further article identification by reference reviews, 58 articles on 23 symptom assessment instruments with documented reliability or validity testing were identified. Of the assessment instruments, 43.5% were generic and 56.5% were ESRD specific. Symptoms most frequently assessed were fatigue, shortness of breath, insomnia, nausea and vomiting, and appetite. Instruments varied widely in respondent time burden, recall period, and symptom attributes. Few instruments considered recall periods less than 2 weeks and few assessed a range of symptom attributes. Psychometric testing was completed for congruent validity (70%), known-group validity (25%), responsiveness (30%), internal consistency (78%), and test-retest reliability (65%). Content validity was assessed in dialysis populations in 57% of the 23 instruments. LIMITATIONS:Consideration of physical symptoms only and exclusion of single symptom-focused instruments. CONCLUSIONS:The number of available instruments focused exclusively on physical symptoms in dialysis patients is limited. Few symptom-containing instruments have short recall periods, assess diverse symptom attributes, and have undergone comprehensive psychometric testing. Improved symptom-focused assessment tools are needed to improve symptom evaluation and symptom responsiveness to intervention among dialysis-dependent patients.

Project description:BackgroundLimitations in physical functioning are a big concern especially for patients with chronic or musculoskeletal diseases. Therefore, physical functioning is often used as a core outcome of treatments. The generic patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS) physical function (PF) item bank has shown potential to measure PF with better precision, interpretability and lower respondent burden compared with traditional patient-reported outcome measures. This study provides an overview of the current evidence on the quality of the measurement properties of the translated Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and its subdomains, and their derived short forms and computer adaptive tests (CATs).MethodsPubMed was searched up to June 17th 2020 for validation studies of Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF in Dutch and Flemish adults. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the COSMIN Risk of bias checklist. The COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties were used to judge the results of the studies, which were adjusted and added to where needed for this review, in the context of IRT instruments and item banks. The quality of evidence was summarized for each measurement property based on the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsEleven studies were included, evaluating the PROMIS-PF item bank, the Upper Extremity (UE) subdomain, and/or their derived short forms and CATs in different clinical populations. There is evidence for sufficient structural validity, measurement precision, construct validity, and cross-cultural validity of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank. The upper extremity subdomain item bank shows high quality evidence for structural validity and measurement precision. Content validity of these item banks has not been thoroughly demonstrated in a Dutch-Flemish population. Furthermore, the derived instruments have far less robust evidence: there are fewer validation studies available and none examined their performance as stand-alone administered instruments.ConclusionsThe first studies into the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS-PF item bank and the UE subdomain show promising results, with especially high quality evidence for sufficient structural validity and measurement precision. However, more studies, and with higher methodological quality, are needed to study the instruments derived from these item banks. These studies should also evaluate content validity, reliability and responsiveness.

Project description:BackgroundMulti-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.ResultsIn total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.ConclusionsThe psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundLymphoma treatment can lead to long-term consequences such as fatigue, infertility and organ damage. In clinical trials, survival outcomes, clinical response and toxicity are extensively reported while the assessment of treatment on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms is often lacking.ObjectiveWe evaluated the use and frequency of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and their consistency of reporting.MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL and trial registries for RCTs investigating HL were systematically searched from 01/01/2016 to 31/05/2022. Following trial selection, trial, patient characteristics and outcome data on the use of PRO measures (PROMs) and reporting of PROs using a pre-defined extraction form were extracted. To assess reporting consistency, trial registries, protocols and publications were compared.ResultsWe identified 4,222 records. Following screening, a total of 317 reports were eligible for full-text evaluation. One hundred sixty-six reports of 51 ongoing/completed trials were included, of which 41% of trials were completed and 49% were ongoing based on registry entries. Full-text or abstract were available for 33 trials. Seventy percent of trials were conducted in the newly diagnosed disease setting, the majority with advanced HL. In 32 trials with published follow-up data, the median follow-up was 5.2 years. Eighteen (35%) completed/ongoing trials had mentioned PRO assessment in registry entries, protocol or publications. Twelve trials (67%) had published results and only 6 trials (50%) reported on PROs in part with the exception of 1 trial where PROs were evaluated as secondary/exploratory outcome. The most referenced global PROM was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (12 studies), the EQ-5D (3 studies) and the FACT-Neurotoxicity (3 studies). FACT-Lymphoma, a disease-specific PROM for non-HL was mentioned in one ongoing trial. None of the trials referenced the EORTC QLQ-HL27, another disease-specific PROM developed specifically for HL patient's QoL assessment.DiscussionsOnly one-third of RCTs in HL report PROs as an outcome and only half present the outcome in subsequent publications, showcasing the underreporting of PROs in trials. Disease-specific PROMs are underutilized in the assessment of QoL in HL patients. Guidance on the assessment of PROs is needed to inform on comprehensive outcomes important to patients.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=391552, identifier CRD42023391552.