Assessing quality of life in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review of the development, content, and quality of available condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 IMMUNOLOGY Transplantation Reviews Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1016/j.trre.2024.100836
Ben Rimmer , Rebeka Jenkins , Siân Russell , Dawn Craig , Linda Sharp , Catherine Exley
{"title":"Assessing quality of life in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review of the development, content, and quality of available condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures","authors":"Ben Rimmer ,&nbsp;Rebeka Jenkins ,&nbsp;Siân Russell ,&nbsp;Dawn Craig ,&nbsp;Linda Sharp ,&nbsp;Catherine Exley","doi":"10.1016/j.trre.2024.100836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We aimed to identify the condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure quality of life (QoL) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, examine their development and content, and critically appraise the quality of their measurement properties, to inform recommendations for clinical and research use.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 27th January 2023. Search hits were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers; papers reporting the development and/or validation of condition- and transplant-specific PROMs measuring QoL in adult SOT recipients were considered eligible. We abstracted and synthesised data on PROM characteristics, development (item generation and/or reduction), and content (QoL dimensions). Quality appraisal and synthesis were informed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and included methodological and quality assessment of measurement properties, GRADE levels of evidence, feasibility and interpretability.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 33 papers reporting 26 QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients (kidney <em>n</em> = 10 PROMs; liver <em>n</em> = 6; lung <em>n</em> = 3; heart <em>n</em> = 2; pancreas n = 1; multiple organs <em>n</em> = 4). Patient discussions (<em>n</em> = 17 PROMs) and factor analysis (<em>n</em> = 11) were the most common item generation and reduction techniques used, respectively. All PROMs measured ≥3 of nine QoL dimensions (all measured emotional functioning); KDQoL-SF and NIDDK-QA measured all nine. Methodological quality was variable; no PROM had low evidence or better for all measurement properties. All PROMs were COSMIN recommendation category ‘B', primarily because none had sufficient content validity.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There are many condition- and transplant-specific QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients, particularly kidney. These findings can help inform PROM selection for clinicians and researchers. However, caution is required when adopting measures, due to the substantial heterogeneity in development, content, and quality. Each PROM has potential but requires further research to be recommendable. Greater consideration of patient and professional involvement in PROM development in this setting is needed to ensure sufficient content validity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48973,"journal":{"name":"Transplantation Reviews","volume":"38 2","pages":"Article 100836"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000193/pdfft?md5=df47eb91c5cd1108c5f4a4fc2517357d&pid=1-s2.0-S0955470X24000193-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transplantation Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955470X24000193","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to identify the condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure quality of life (QoL) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, examine their development and content, and critically appraise the quality of their measurement properties, to inform recommendations for clinical and research use.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 27th January 2023. Search hits were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers; papers reporting the development and/or validation of condition- and transplant-specific PROMs measuring QoL in adult SOT recipients were considered eligible. We abstracted and synthesised data on PROM characteristics, development (item generation and/or reduction), and content (QoL dimensions). Quality appraisal and synthesis were informed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and included methodological and quality assessment of measurement properties, GRADE levels of evidence, feasibility and interpretability.

Results

We identified 33 papers reporting 26 QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients (kidney n = 10 PROMs; liver n = 6; lung n = 3; heart n = 2; pancreas n = 1; multiple organs n = 4). Patient discussions (n = 17 PROMs) and factor analysis (n = 11) were the most common item generation and reduction techniques used, respectively. All PROMs measured ≥3 of nine QoL dimensions (all measured emotional functioning); KDQoL-SF and NIDDK-QA measured all nine. Methodological quality was variable; no PROM had low evidence or better for all measurement properties. All PROMs were COSMIN recommendation category ‘B', primarily because none had sufficient content validity.

Conclusions

There are many condition- and transplant-specific QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients, particularly kidney. These findings can help inform PROM selection for clinicians and researchers. However, caution is required when adopting measures, due to the substantial heterogeneity in development, content, and quality. Each PROM has potential but requires further research to be recommendable. Greater consideration of patient and professional involvement in PROM development in this setting is needed to ensure sufficient content validity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估实体器官移植受者的生活质量:对现有特定条件和移植患者报告结果测量方法的开发、内容和质量进行系统回顾
目的我们旨在确定可用于测量实体器官移植(SOT)受者生活质量(QoL)的特定病情和移植患者报告的结果测量指标(PROMs),研究其开发和内容,并对其测量属性的质量进行批判性评价,从而为临床和研究使用提供建议。方法我们系统地检索了从开始到 2023 年 1 月 27 日的 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、PsycINFO、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 Scopus。两位独立审稿人对检索结果进行了资格筛选,认为符合条件的论文均报告了测量成人 SOT 受者 QoL 的特定条件和移植 PROM 的开发和/或验证情况。我们对 PROM 的特征、开发(项目生成和/或缩减)和内容(QoL 维度)进行了摘录和综合。质量评估和综合参考了基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)指南,包括测量属性的方法学和质量评估、GRADE证据等级、可行性和可解释性。患者讨论(n = 17 PROMs)和因子分析(n = 11)分别是最常用的项目生成和缩减技术。所有 PROM 均测量了九个 QoL 维度中的≥3 个维度(均测量情绪功能);KDQoL-SF 和 NIDDK-QA 测量了所有九个维度。方法学质量参差不齐;没有一项 PROM 在所有测量属性方面都具有低证据或更好的证据。所有 PROM 都属于 COSMIN 推荐的 "B "类,主要是因为没有一个 PROM 具有足够的内容效度。这些发现有助于临床医生和研究人员选择 PROM。但是,由于在开发、内容和质量方面存在很大的异质性,因此在采用这些指标时需要谨慎。每个 PROM 都有潜力,但需要进一步研究才能推荐使用。在这种情况下,需要更多地考虑患者和专业人员参与 PROM 的开发,以确保足够的内容有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Transplantation Reviews
Transplantation Reviews IMMUNOLOGY-TRANSPLANTATION
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
40
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: Transplantation Reviews contains state-of-the-art review articles on both clinical and experimental transplantation. The journal features invited articles by authorities in immunology, transplantation medicine and surgery.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Early and late antibody mediated rejection: Which game is the complement playing? Heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart diseases: A comprehensive meta-analysis on waiting times, operative, and survival outcomes Complement and complement regulatory protein in allogeneic and xenogeneic kidney transplantation Frailty serves as an adverse predictor for mortality in liver transplant candidates: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1