How Do We Value Postoperative Recovery?

Julio F. Fiore · Sabrina M. Figueiredo · Saba Balvardi · Lawrence Lee · Bénédicte Nauche · Tara Landry +2 more

74 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare Nausea and vomiting management

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To appraise the level of evidence supporting the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the context of postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using PROMs to support value-based care in abdominal surgery; however, to draw valid conclusions regarding patient-reported outcomes data, PROMs with robust measurement properties are required. METHODS: Eight databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched for studies focused on the measurement properties of PROMs in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. The methodological quality of individual studies was evaluated using the consensus-based COSMIN checklist. Evidence supporting the measurement properties of each PROM was synthetized according to standardized criteria and compared against the International Society of Quality of Life Research minimum standards for the selection of PROMs for outcomes research. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies evaluating 22 PROMs [12 focused on nonspecific surgical populations (55%), 4 focused on abdominal surgery (18%), and 6 generic PROMs (27%)]. The great majority of the studies (74%) received only poor or fair quality ratings. Measurement properties of PROMs were predominantly supported by limited or unknown evidence. None of the PROMs fulfilled International Society of Quality of Life Research's minimum standards, hindering specific recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence supporting the measurement properties of existing PROMs used in the context of recovery after abdominal surgery. This precludes the use of these PROMs to support value-based surgical care. Further research is required to bridge this major knowledge gap. REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42014014349.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 74 citations exist upstream.

References

2006Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires 2010The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study 2011Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist 2014Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine 2013The Strategy That Will Fix Health Care 2009Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments 2013ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research 2007Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: problems, solutions, and recommendations

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.