Dataset Information

Patient-reported Outcome Measures following Traumatic Lower Extremity Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Outcomes after traumatic major lower extremity amputation (MLEA) have focused on surgical complications, despite the life-altering impact on patients. With advances in the surgical management of MLEA, a heightened need for consistent reporting of patient-centered outcomes (PCO) remains. This meta-analysis assesses articles for the prevalence and methods of PCO reporting among traumatic MLEA studies.

Methods

An electronic database search was completed using Ovid MEDLINE for studies published between 2000 and 2020. Studies were included that reported any outcome of traumatic MLEA. Weighted means of outcomes were calculated when data were available. The prevalence of PCO was assessed in the categories of physical function, quality of life (QOL), psychosocial, and pain. Trends in PCO reporting were analyzed using Pearson's chi-squared test and analysis of variance when appropriate.

Results

In total, 7001 studies were screened, yielding 156 articles for inclusion. PCO were evaluated in 94 (60.3%) studies; 83 (53.2%) reported physical function and mobility outcomes, 33 (21.2%) reported QOL and satisfaction measures, 38 (24.4%) reported psychosocial data, and 43 (27.6%) reported pain outcomes. There was no change in prevalence of PCO reporting when comparing 5-year intervals between 2000 and 2020 (P = 0.557).

Conclusions

Optimization of function and QOL following traumatic MLEA has become a cornerstone of surgical success; however, only 60% of studies report PCO, with no trend over the last two decades suggesting improvement. As healthcare progresses toward patient-centered care, this inconsistent means of reporting PCO calls for improved inclusion and standardization of instruments to assess function, QOL, and other patient-focused measures.

SUBMITTER: Tirrell AR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8751770 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients who undergo lower extremity amputation secondary to the complications of diabetes or peripheral artery disease have poor long-term survival. Providing patients and surgeons with individual-patient, rather than population, survival estimates provides them with important information to make individualized treatment decisions.MethodsPatients with peripheral artery disease and/or diabetes undergoing their first unilateral transmetatarsal, transtibial or transfemoral amputation were identified in the Veterans Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database. Stepdown logistic regression was used to develop a 1-year mortality risk prediction model from a list of 33 candidate predictors using data from three of five Department of Veterans Affairs national geographical regions. External geographical validation was performed using data from the remaining two regions. Calibration and discrimination were assessed in the development and validation samples.ResultsThe development sample included 5028 patients and the validation sample 2140. The final mortality prediction model (AMPREDICT-Mortality) included amputation level, age, BMI, race, functional status, congestive heart failure, dialysis, blood urea nitrogen level, and white blood cell and platelet counts. The model fit in the validation sample was good. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the validation sample was 0·76 and Cox calibration regression indicated excellent calibration (slope 0·96, 95 per cent c.i. 0·85 to 1·06; intercept 0·02, 95 per cent c.i. -0·12 to 0·17). Given the external validation characteristics, the development and validation samples were combined, giving a total sample of 7168.ConclusionThe AMPREDICT-Mortality prediction model is a validated parsimonious model that can be used to inform the 1-year mortality risk following non-traumatic lower extremity amputation of patients with peripheral artery disease or diabetes.

Project description:ImportanceChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a substantial adverse effect of anticancer treatments. As such, the assessment of CIPN remains critically important in both research and clinic settings.ObjectiveTo compare the validity of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with neurophysiological and sensory functional measures as the optimal method of CIPN assessment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study evaluated participants treated with neurotoxic chemotherapy across 2 cohorts using a dual-study design. Participants commencing treatment were assessed prospectively at beginning of neurotoxic treatment, midtreatment, and at the end of treatment. Participants who completed treatment up to 5 years prior were assessed cross-sectionally and completed a single assessment time point. Participants were recruited from oncology centers in Australia from August 2015 to November 2022. Data analysis occurred from February to November 2023.ExposuresNeurotoxic cancer treatment including taxanes, platinums, vinca-alkaloids, proteasome inhibitors, and thalidomide.Main outcomes and measuresCIPN was assessed via PROMs (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire [EORTC-CIPN20], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecological Cancer Group Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (FACT/GOG-Ntx), and the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]), neurological and neurophysiological assessment (Total Neuropathy Score and sural and tibial compound nerve amplitudes), and sensory measures (Grating orientation, Von Frey monofilament, and 2-point discrimination tasks). Core measurement properties of CIPN outcome measures were evaluated. Convergent and known-groups validity was assessed cross-sectionally following treatment completion, and responsiveness was evaluated prospectively during treatment. Neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measure scores were compared between those who reported high and low levels of CIPN symptoms using linear regressions.ResultsA total of 1033 participants (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-59] years; 676 female [65.4%]) were recruited to this study, incorporating 1623 assessments. PROMs demonstrated best ability to accurately assess CIPN (convergent validity), especially the PRO-CTCAE composite score (r = 0.85; P < .001) and EORTC-CIPN20 (r = 0.79; P < .001). PROMS also demonstrated the best ability to discriminate between CIPN severity (known-groups validity) and to detect changes at onset of CIPN development (responsiveness), especially for EORTC-CIPN20 (d = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.83), FACT/GOG-Ntx (d = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.81) and the PRO-CTCAE (d = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02). Other measures did not achieve threshold for convergent validity (α < 0.7). Neurophysiological and sensory measures did not demonstrate acceptable responsiveness. In regression models, neurological, neurophysiological, and sensory outcome measures were significantly impaired in participants who reported high levels of CIPN symptoms compared with those who reported low levels of CIPN symptoms.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of 1033 cancer patients, PROMs were the only measures to satisfy all 3 core measurement property criteria (convergent validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness). These findings suggest that adoption of PROMs in clinical practice can equip clinicians with valuable information in assessing CIPN morbidity.

Project description:IntroductionTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important as certain questions could only be answered by the patient himself. PROMs help to get a better understanding what is meaningful to a patient and directly affects daily functioning. To move beyond traditional measures, we are interested in what matters to patients and developed this project. The aim of this article is to provide the protocol for our study collecting PROMs in daily medical practice from patients who undergo knee arthroplasty.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, observational, prospective cohort study. We will recruit patients scheduled for a knee arthroplasty in our medical office, situated in a private clinic. After signed informed consent, patients complete self-reported questionnaires before the surgery, after 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. We will use the following PROMs: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score, EuroQol five dimensions and satisfaction. Additionally, the surgeon will complete the objective Knee Society Score. Administration of the questionnaires will be electronically or paper-based. We will assess differences between preoperative and postoperative data with paired t-test for continuous variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for categorical variables. To assess subgroup differences, we will use unpaired t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables. To assess possible presence of bias, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee in Basel, Switzerland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. We will disseminate the results of the study through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and presentations to relevant stakeholders through appropriate channels.

Project description:IntroductionWe conducted a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) regarding quality of life, disability, mood abnormalities (anxiety, depression), fatigue, illness perceptions and fibromyalgia in Takayasu arteritis (TAK). Wherever available, comparisons with healthy controls, disease controls or longitudinal changes in PROMs were noted.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed Central databases, major recent international rheumatology conference abstracts, clinical trial databases and the Cochrane library were searched for relevant articles. Wherever possible, outcome measures across studies were pooled using the restricted maximum likelihood model. Inter-group differences were pooled and compared using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For cross-sectional and cohort studies, the Joana Briggs Institute checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used, respectively. GRADE methodology was used to determine the certainty of evidence for outcomes.ResultsTwenty-one studies (all but one observational) involving 1311 patients with TAK and 308 healthy controls were identified. Ten studies (559 TAK patients, 182 healthy controls were synthesized in a meta-analysis. Patients with TAK had worse quality of life (pooled SMD - 6.66, 95% CI - 10.08 to - 3.23 for individual domains; - 0.64, 95% CI - 1.19 to - 0.09 for pooled physical and mental component scores of 36-item Short Form Survey), depression (SMD 0.26, 95% 0.05-0.47) and anxiety (SMD 0.34, 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.75) scores and higher disability (SMD 0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.84) than healthy controls. Patients with active TAK had worse quality of life, depression and work impairment when compared with those with inactive disease. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. Certainty of evidence for individual outcomes was low to very low.ConclusionLiterature on PROMs in TAK, albeit sparse, appears to indicate worse scores in patients with TAK compared to healthy individuals. These results, however, require cautious interpretation. Development of a TAK-specific PROM is an important focus of the research agenda.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive neuromuscular disease characterized by progressive muscle weakness, multiple system involvement and premature mortality. Effective treatments for DMD through clinical trials and natural history studies are currently underway. Clinical trials in DMD typically include several outcome measures of motor function. Research sites and studies have been found to have slightly different operational definitions for a given functional outcome resulting in different procedures and protocols for these measurements. OBJECTIVE:The goal of this study is to establish agreement among experts in the field around best practices in collecting functional outcome data in DMD providing researchers and clinicians with guidance on best practices. METHODS:A group of 30 experts in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) with experience in the development and/ or execution of lower extremity outcome measures for this population met face to face to identify incongruences in the collection of this data. This effort was based in the United States (US) and sponsored by Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. Several discrepancies were categorized for each outcome which included: 6-minute walk test, 10-meter walk/run, supine to stand, ascend 4 stairs, sit to stand, and the NorthStar Ambulatory Assessment. Following this meeting an additional 32 experts in DMD (28 from the United States and 11 international participants) consented to participate in a Delphi Survey to reach consensus on the protocols and execution of lower extremity outcomes. RESULTS:Round one: 70 operationally defined questions were surveyed with 45 (64%) reaching >70% consensus. Round two: 27 questions were operational, with 20 (74%) reaching >70% consensus. Those questions that did not reach consensus appear minor. CONCLUSION:With minor modifications in the collection of data across sites, outcomes could potentially be normalized across research studies. This would reduce excessive training for evaluators in trials and produce minimal differences between protocols. Consistency in protocols will promote more efficient study start up, less errors between administration of items across studies, and ultimately improve quality and reliability of the functional outcomes. The authors strongly advocate for the establishment of a "research network library" that could be utilized by all those performing clinical assessments and trials in DMD.