These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Patient Reported Outcome Measures Used to Assess Quality of Life in Aortic Dissection: a Systematic Scoping Review using COSMIN Methodology.
    Author: Hanna L, Jha R, Sounderajah V, Markar S, Gibbs R.
    Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg; 2023 Sep; 66(3):343-350. PubMed ID: 37391013.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify all patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (quality of life [QOL] instruments or other instrument/methodology) that have been used to date in aortic dissection (AD) and to explore how well these instruments evaluate QOL according to the Consensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology or guideline. DATA SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were search on 1st July 2022. REVIEW METHODS: This scoping review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the COSMIN guidelines for performing systematic reviews of validated PROMs. Studies that reported on any aspect or domain of QOL using a PROM or other instrument or methodology on AD were included. Data synthesis, including psychometric property analysis and risk of bias assessment were performed according to COSMIN guidelines. RESULTS: Forty-five studies, published between 1994 and 2021 reporting on 5 874 patients (mean age 63 years, 70.6% male), were included. A total of 39 PROMs were used, and three studies used semi-structured interviews. The majority (69%) of studies were in patients with type A aortic dissection (TAAD). The most common PROM used was the SF-36 (51%). Six studies evaluated one or more psychometric properties of a PROM. Only one of these studies was specifically designed as a validation study. No study reported on content validity. Internal consistency was the most evaluated psychometric property. No study evaluated all the psychometric properties according to COSMIN methodology. The methodological quality used to assess these PROMs was judged to be adequate or very good. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the heterogeneity of PROMs or methods used to determine QOL in AD patients. The lack of research regarding a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of a PROM used in AD highlights the need for the development and validation of a dissection specific PROM. [PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022310477].
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]