1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Medicine
  4. Volume 69, 2018
  5. Article

Annual Review of Medicine

Volume 69, 2018

Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Key Metrics in Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

Satisfaction and improved quality of life are among the most important outcomes for patients undergoing plastic and reconstructive surgery for a variety of diseases and conditions. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools for evaluating the benefits of newly developed surgical techniques. Modern PROMs are being developed with new psychometric approaches, such as Rasch Measurement Theory, and their measurement properties (validity, reliability, responsiveness) are rigorously tested. These advances have resulted in the availability of PROMs that provide clinically meaningful data and effectively measure functional as well as psychosocial outcomes. This article guides the reader through the steps of creating a PROM and highlights the potential research and clinical uses of such instruments. Limitations of PROMs and anticipated future directions in this field are discussed.

Keyword(s): BODY-Q, BREAST-Q, CLEFT-Q, patient-reported outcome measure, reliability, validity
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831
2018-01-29
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/69/1/annurev-med-060116-022831.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Porter ME. 1.  2009. A strategy for health care reform—toward a value-based system. N. Engl. J. Med. 361:109–12 [Google Scholar]
  2. Sears ED, Burns PB, Chung KC. 2.  2007. The outcomes of outcome studies in plastic surgery: a systematic review of 17 years of plastic surgery research. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 120:2059–65 [Google Scholar]
  3. Voineskos SH, Coroneos CJ, Ziolkowski NI. 3.  et al. 2016. A systematic review of surgical randomized controlled trials: part I. Risk of bias and outcomes: common pitfalls plastic surgeons can overcome. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 137:696–706 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN. 4.  et al. 2016. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 69:149–62 [Google Scholar]
  5. Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW. 5.  et al. 2013. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual. Life Res. 22:1889–905 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chung KC, Pusic AL. 6.  2013. Patient-reported outcomes instruments. Outcomes measures in plastic surgery. Clin. Plast. Surg. 40:xi–xii [Google Scholar]
  7. Pusic A, Liu JC, Chen CM. 7.  et al. 2007. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in head and neck cancer surgery. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 136:525–35 [Google Scholar]
  8. Pusic AL, Chen CM, Cano S. 8.  et al. 2007. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 120:823–37 [Google Scholar]
  9. Klassen AF, Stotland MA, Skarsgard ED, Pusic AL. 9.  2008. Clinical research in pediatric plastic surgery and systematic review of quality-of-life questionnaires. Clin. Plast. Surg. 35:251–67 [Google Scholar]
  10. Kosowski TR, McCarthy C, Reavey PL. 10.  et al. 2009. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after facial cosmetic surgery and/or nonsurgical facial rejuvenation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 123:1819–27 [Google Scholar]
  11. Winters ZE, Benson JR, Pusic AL. 11.  2010. A systematic review of the clinical evidence to guide treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient-reported outcome measures and health-related quality of life. Ann. Surg. 252:929–42 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen CM, Cano SJ, Klassen AF. 12.  et al. 2010. Measuring quality of life in oncologic breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Breast J 16:587–97 [Google Scholar]
  13. Reavey PL, Klassen AF, Cano SJ. 13.  et al. 2011. Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction after body contouring: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Aesthet. Surg. J. 31:807–13 [Google Scholar]
  14. Klassen AF, Tsangaris E, Forrest CR. 14.  et al. 2012. Quality of life of children treated for cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 65:547–57 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ho AL, Scott AM, Klassen AF. 15.  et al. 2012. Measuring quality of life and patient satisfaction in facial paralysis patients: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 130:91–99 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lee EH, Klassen AF, Nehal KS. 16.  et al. 2013. A systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the dermatologic population. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 69:e59–67 [Google Scholar]
  17. Pusic AL, Cemal Y, Albornoz C. 17.  et al. 2013. Quality of life among breast cancer patients with lymphedema: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes. J. Cancer Surviv. 7:83–92 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cemal Y, Jewell S, Albornoz CR. 18.  et al. 2013. Systematic review of quality of life and patient reported outcomes in patients with oncologic related lower extremity lymphedema. Lymphat. Res. Biol. 11:14–19 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Pusic AL. 19.  2013. A closer look at the BREAST-Q©. Clin. Plast. Surg. 40:287–96 [Google Scholar]
  20. Tractenberg RE. 20.  2010. Classical and modern measurement theories, patient reports, and clinical outcomes. Contemp. Clin. Trials 31:1–3 [Google Scholar]
  21. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. 21.  1995. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual. Life Res. 4:293–307 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM. 22.  et al. 2009. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 124:345–53 [Google Scholar]
  23. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Scott A. 23.  et al. 2010. Measuring patient-reported outcomes in facial aesthetic patients: development of the FACE-Q. Facial Plast. Surg. 26:303–9 [Google Scholar]
  24. Klassen AF, Cano SJ, Alderman A. 24.  et al. 2016. The BODY-Q: a patient-reported outcome instrument for weight loss and body contouring treatments. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 4:e679 [Google Scholar]
  25. Wong Riff KW, Tsangaris E, Goodacre T. 25.  et al. 2017. International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome instrument for children and young adults with cleft lip and/or palate (CLEFT-Q). BMJ Open 7:e015467 [Google Scholar]
  26. Wickert NM, Riff KW, Mansour M. 26.  et al. 2016. Content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments used with pediatric patients with facial differences: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. In press
  27. Fan X. 27.  1998. Item response theory and classical test theory: an empirical comparison of their item/person statistics. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 58:357–81 [Google Scholar]
  28. Wong KW, Forrest CR, Goodacre TE, Klassen AF. 28.  2013. Measuring outcomes in craniofacial and pediatric plastic surgery. Clin. Plast. Surg. 40:305–12 [Google Scholar]
  29. Parker SE, Mai CT, Canfield MA. 29.  et al. 2010. Updated national birth prevalence estimates for selected birth defects in the United States, 2004–2006. Birth Defects Res. A Clin. Mol. Teratol. 88:1008–16 [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. US Food and Drug Admin., ed. 2009. Guidance for industry: patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Rep. US Food and Drug Admin. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf
  31. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ. 31.  et al. 2011. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health 14:978–88 [Google Scholar]
  32. Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ. 32.  et al. 2011. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health 14:967–77 [Google Scholar]
  33. Bredart A, Marrel A, Abetz-Webb L. 33.  et al. 2014. Interviewing to develop patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for clinical research: eliciting patients’ experience. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12:15 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rasch G. 34.  1993. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests Chicago: MESA Press
  35. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL. 35.  et al. 2010. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 63:737–45 [Google Scholar]
  36. Broder HL, Wilson-Genderson M. 36.  2007. Reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the Child Oral Health Impact Profile (COHIP Child's version). Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 35:Suppl. 120–31 [Google Scholar]
  37. Broder HL, Wilson-Genderson M, Sischo L. 37.  2012. Reliability and validity testing for the Child Oral Health Impact Profile–Reduced (COHIP-SF 19). J. Public Health Dent. 72:302–12 [Google Scholar]
  38. Emerson MS-BS, Bates A. 38.  2004. Relationships between self-esteem, social experiences and satisfaction with appearance: standardisation and construct validation of two cleft audit measures Presented at Annu. Sci. Conf. Craniofac. Soc Great Britain and Ireland, Bath UK:
  39. Streiner DL, Norman GR. 39.  2008. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  40. Brozek JL, Guyatt GH, Schunemann HJ. 40.  2006. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 4:69 [Google Scholar]
  41. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW. 41.  et al. 2002. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin. Proc. 77:371–83 [Google Scholar]
  42. Soldin M, Mughal M, Al-Hadithy N. 42.  2014. National commissioning guidelines: body contouring surgery after massive weight loss. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 67:1076–81 [Google Scholar]
  43. Cohen J. 43.  1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences New York: Routledge Acad.
  44. Wiering B, de Boer D, Delnoij D. 44.  2017. Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review. Health Expect 20:11–23 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pusic AL, Matros E, Fine N. 45.  et al. 2017. Patient-reported outcomes 1 year after immediate breast reconstruction: results of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 35:222499–506 [Google Scholar]
  46. Berlin NL, Momoh AO, Qi J. 46.  et al. 2017. Racial and ethnic variations in one-year clinical and patient-reported outcomes following breast reconstruction. Am. J. Surg. 214:2312–17 [Google Scholar]
  47. Billig J, Jagsi R, Qi J. 47.  et al. 2017. Should immediate autologous breast reconstruction be considered in women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy? A prospective analysis of outcomes. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 139:1279–88 [Google Scholar]
  48. Santosa KB, Qi J, Kim HM. 48.  et al. 2016. Effect of patient age on outcomes in breast reconstruction: results from a multicenter prospective study. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 223:745–54 [Google Scholar]
  49. Weichman KE, Hamill JB, Kim HM. 49.  et al. 2015. Understanding the recovery phase of breast reconstructions: patient-reported outcomes correlated to the type and timing of reconstruction. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 68:1370–78 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF. 50.  et al. 2017. Normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q: augmentation. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 139:846–53 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF. 51.  et al. 2017. Understanding the health burden of macromastia: normative data for the BREAST-Q reduction module. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 139:846e–53e [Google Scholar]
  52. Mundy LR, Homa K, Klassen AF. 52.  et al. 2017. Breast cancer and reconstruction: normative data for interpreting the BREAST-Q. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 139:1046e–55e [Google Scholar]
  53. Thoma A, Ignacy TA, Ziolkowski N, Voineskos S. 53.  2012. The performance and publication of cost-utility analyses in plastic surgery: making our specialty relevant. Can. J. Plast. Surg. 20:187–93 [Google Scholar]
  54. Malay S, Chung KC. 54.  2013. How to use outcomes questionnaires: pearls and pitfalls. Clin. Plast. Surg. 40:261–69 [Google Scholar]
  55. Bindra RR, Dias JJ, Heras-Palau C. 55.  et al. 2003. Assessing outcome after hand surgery: the current state. J. Hand Surg. Br. 28:289–94 [Google Scholar]
  56. Pusic AL, Lemaine V, Klassen AF. 56.  et al. 2011. Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 127:1361–67 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pezold ML, Pusic AL, Cohen WA. 57.  et al. 2016. Defining a research agenda for patient-reported outcomes in surgery: using a Delphi survey of stakeholders. JAMA Surg 151:930–36 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wu AW, Kharrazi H, Boulware LE, Snyder CF. 58.  2013. Measure once, cut twice—adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 66:S12–20 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Der Wees PJ, Nijuis-Van Der Sandern MW, Ayanian JZ. 59.  et al. 2014. Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q. 92:754–775 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhong T, Pusic AL. 60.  2013. Future of outcomes research in plastic surgery. Clin. Plast. Surg. 40:351–57 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tsangaris E, Riff KWYW, Vargas F. 61.  et al. 2017. Translation and cultural adaptation of the CLEFT-Q for use in Colombia, Chile, and Spain. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 15:1228 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831
Loading
Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes: Key Metrics in Reconstructive Surgery
Annual Review of Medicine 69, 467 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-060116-022831
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error