Dataset Information

Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported and to assess the quality of reporting PROs for elderly patients with a hip fracture in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched on 1 March 2013 to 25 May 2021.

Eligibility criteria

RCTs and observational studies on geriatric (≥65 years of age) patients, with one or more PRO as outcome were included.

Data extraction and synthesis

Primary outcome was type of PRO; secondary outcome and quality assessment was measured by adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension for patient-reported outcomes (CONSORT-PRO). Because of heterogeneity in study population and outcomes, data pooling was not possible.

Results

3659 studies were found in the initial search. Of those, 67 were included in the final analysis. 83.6% of studies did not adequately mention missing data, 52.3% did not correctly report how PROs were collected and 61.2% did not report adequate effect size. PRO limitations were adequately reported in 20.9% of studies and interpretation of PROs was adequately reported in 19.4% of studies. Most Quality of Life (QoL) outcomes were measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Levels, and pain as well as patient satisfaction by Visual Analogue Scale.

Conclusion

This study found that a high variety of PRO measures are used to evaluate geriatric hip fracture care. In addition, 47.8% of studies examining PROs in elderly patients with hip fracture do not satisfy at least 50% of the CONSORT-PRO criteria. This enables poorly conducted research to be published and used in evidence-based medicine and, consequently, shared decision-making. More efforts should be undertaken to improve adequate reporting. We believe extending the CONSORT-PRO extension to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies would be a valuable addition to current guidelines.

SUBMITTER: van der Vet P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9756149 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.

van der Vet Puck P Wilson Sandra S Houwert R Marijn RM Verleisdonk Egbert-Jan EJ Heng Marilyn M

BMJ open 20221215 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess how patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported and to assess the quality of reporting PROs for elderly patients with a hip fracture in both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline, Embase and CENTRAL were searched on 1 March 2013 to 25 May 2021.<h4>Eligibility criteria</h4>RCTs and observational studies on geriatric (≥65 years of age) patients, with one or more PRO as outcome were i ...[more]

PMID: 36521890

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.ObjectiveTo investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.Evidence reviewThis preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.FindingsAmong 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide valuable insights on the impact of a disease or treatment on a patient's health-related quality of life. In ophthalmology, particularly in dry eye disease (DED) and ocular surface disease (OSD), it is unclear whether the available PROMs were developed using comprehensive guidelines. To address this, we evaluated the methodological quality of studies assessing the psychometric properties of PROMs in DED and OSD [PROSPERO registration number CRD42019142328].MethodsFour databases were searched; reference list and citation searching of included studies was also conducted. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to appraise the quality of the studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs used in DED and OSD.ResultsThe search strategy (S3 Table) retrieved 5,761 records, 573 duplicates were removed, 5,188 abstracts were screened and 127 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 118 full-text articles did not meet the eligibility criteria and were excluded. Reference list and citation searching, identified an additional 8 articles bringing the total numbers of papers reviewed to 17. In general, psychometric properties such as content validity, measurement error and structural validity were not assessed by the studies included in this review. Studies reviewing The Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) presented with the highest quality scores together with the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire.ConclusionsThe quality of studies evaluating PROMs in DED and OSD was considered using the COSMIN standards. The majority of the studies evaluating PROMs included in this review did not meet the recommended COSMIN criteria and the quality of the PROMs evaluated is not assured. Further evaluation of their psychometric properties is required if these are going to be used in clinical practice or research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the risk prediction models for postoperative delirium in older adult hip fracture patients.MethodsRisk prediction models for postoperative delirium in older adult hip fracture patients were collected from the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid via the internet, covering studies from the establishment of the databases to March 15, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and used Stata 13.0 for meta-analysis of predictive factors and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the risk prediction models for postoperative delirium in older adult hip fracture patients, evaluated the predictive performance.ResultsThis analysis included eight studies. Six studies used internal validation to assess the predictive models, while one combined both internal and external validation. The Area Under Curve (AUC) for the models ranged from 0.67 to 0.79. The most common predictors were preoperative dementia or dementia history (OR = 3.123, 95% CI 2.108-4.626, p < 0.001), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (OR = 2.343, 95% CI 1.146-4.789, p < 0.05), and age (OR = 1.615, 95% CI 1.387-1.880, p < 0.001). This meta-analysis shows that these were independent risk factors for postoperative delirium in older adult patients with hip fracture.ConclusionResearch on the risk prediction models for postoperative delirium in older adult hip fracture patients is still in the developmental stage. The predictive performance of some of the established models achieve expectation and the applicable risk of all models is low, but there are also problems such as high risk of bias and lack of external validation. Medical professionals should select existing models and validate and optimize them with large samples from multiple centers according to their actual situation. It is more recommended to carry out a large sample of prospective studies to build prediction models.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this systematic review was published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under the registered number CRD42022365258.

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.

Dataset Information

Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Quality and reporting of patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with hip fracture: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets