对软组织肉瘤患者进行患者报告结果测量的二十五年经验:系统综述

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4
Jasmijn D. Generaal, Marnix R. Jansen, Goudje L. van Leeuwen, Robert J. van Ginkel, Lukas B. Been, Barbara L. van Leeuwen
{"title":"对软组织肉瘤患者进行患者报告结果测量的二十五年经验:系统综述","authors":"Jasmijn D. Generaal, Marnix R. Jansen, Goudje L. van Leeuwen, Robert J. van Ginkel, Lukas B. Been, Barbara L. van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>As the importance of the patient’s perspective on treatment outcome is becoming increasingly clear, the availability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has grown accordingly. There remains insufficient information regarding the quality of PROMs in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs). The objectives of this systematic review were (1) to identify all PROMs used in STS patients and (2) to critically appraise the methodological quality of these PROMs.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase on April 22, 2024. PROMs were identified by including all studies that evaluate (an aspect of) health-related quality of life in STS patients by using a PROM. Second, studies that assessed measurement properties of the PROMs utilized in STS patients were included. Quality of PROMs was evaluated by performing a COSMIN analysis.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>In 59 studies, 39 PROMs were identified, with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) being the most frequently utilized. Three studies evaluated methodological quality of PROMs in the STS population. Measurement properties of the TESS, Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) were reported. None of the PROMs utilized in the STS population can be recommended for use based on the current evidence and COSMIN analysis.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>To ensure collection of reliable outcomes, PROMs require methodological evaluation prior to utilization in the STS population. Research should prioritize on determining relevant content and subsequently selecting the most suitable PROM for assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Twenty-five years of experience with patient-reported outcome measures in soft-tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Jasmijn D. Generaal, Marnix R. Jansen, Goudje L. van Leeuwen, Robert J. van Ginkel, Lukas B. Been, Barbara L. van Leeuwen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>As the importance of the patient’s perspective on treatment outcome is becoming increasingly clear, the availability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has grown accordingly. There remains insufficient information regarding the quality of PROMs in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs). The objectives of this systematic review were (1) to identify all PROMs used in STS patients and (2) to critically appraise the methodological quality of these PROMs.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase on April 22, 2024. PROMs were identified by including all studies that evaluate (an aspect of) health-related quality of life in STS patients by using a PROM. Second, studies that assessed measurement properties of the PROMs utilized in STS patients were included. Quality of PROMs was evaluated by performing a COSMIN analysis.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>In 59 studies, 39 PROMs were identified, with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) being the most frequently utilized. Three studies evaluated methodological quality of PROMs in the STS population. Measurement properties of the TESS, Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) were reported. None of the PROMs utilized in the STS population can be recommended for use based on the current evidence and COSMIN analysis.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>To ensure collection of reliable outcomes, PROMs require methodological evaluation prior to utilization in the STS population. Research should prioritize on determining relevant content and subsequently selecting the most suitable PROM for assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03755-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 随着患者视角对治疗结果的重要性日益明显,患者报告结果测量(PROMs)的可用性也相应增加。目前有关软组织肉瘤(STS)患者 PROMs 质量的信息仍然不足。本系统性综述的目的是:(1)确定所有用于 STS 患者的 PROMs;(2)严格评估这些 PROMs 的方法学质量。方法:2024 年 4 月 22 日在 MEDLINE 和 Embase 中进行文献检索。通过使用 PROM 来评估 STS 患者健康相关生活质量(某一方面)的所有研究来确定 PROM。其次,纳入对 STS 患者使用的 PROM 的测量特性进行评估的研究。结果 在 59 项研究中,确定了 39 个 PROM,其中最常用的是多伦多肢体救治评分(TESS)。三项研究评估了 STS 群体中 PROM 的方法质量。研究报告了 TESS、手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾(QuickDASH)以及欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织生活质量问卷(EORTC-QQLQ-C30)的测量特性。结论为确保收集到可靠的结果,在 STS 患者中使用 PROMs 之前需要进行方法学评估。研究应优先考虑确定相关内容,然后选择最合适的 PROM 进行评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Twenty-five years of experience with patient-reported outcome measures in soft-tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic review

Purpose

As the importance of the patient’s perspective on treatment outcome is becoming increasingly clear, the availability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has grown accordingly. There remains insufficient information regarding the quality of PROMs in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs). The objectives of this systematic review were (1) to identify all PROMs used in STS patients and (2) to critically appraise the methodological quality of these PROMs.

Methods

Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase on April 22, 2024. PROMs were identified by including all studies that evaluate (an aspect of) health-related quality of life in STS patients by using a PROM. Second, studies that assessed measurement properties of the PROMs utilized in STS patients were included. Quality of PROMs was evaluated by performing a COSMIN analysis.

Results

In 59 studies, 39 PROMs were identified, with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) being the most frequently utilized. Three studies evaluated methodological quality of PROMs in the STS population. Measurement properties of the TESS, Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) were reported. None of the PROMs utilized in the STS population can be recommended for use based on the current evidence and COSMIN analysis.

Conclusion

To ensure collection of reliable outcomes, PROMs require methodological evaluation prior to utilization in the STS population. Research should prioritize on determining relevant content and subsequently selecting the most suitable PROM for assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Health-related quality of life due to malaria: a systematic review. Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®). Symptom prevalence in patients with advanced heart failure and its association with quality of life and activities of daily living. Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS-16 in a sample of adults in the United States with back pain. Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.
×
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