Esophageal carcinoma is a malignant tumor with high morbidity and mortality worldwide, and surgery is the main treatment currently. With the development of patient-centered care, the effect of surgery should not be limited to the improvement of the incidence of postoperative complications, mortality and other indicators. It is also important to provide experience related to disease and surgery from the perspective of patients. Therefore, more and more attention is paid to patient-reported outcomes by scholars. This paper will provide an overview of the international widely used, reliable and effective scales and researches about patient-reported outcomes in esophageal carcinoma.
Measurement properties studies of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) aims to validate the measurement properties of PROMs. In the process of designing and statistical analysis of these measurement properties studies, bias will occur if there are any defects, which will affect the quality of PROMs. Therefore, the COSMIN (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments) team has developed the COSMIN risk of bias (COSMIN-RoB) checklist to evaluate risk of bias of studies on measurement properties of PROMs. The checklist can be used to develop systematic reviews of PROMs measurement properties, and for PROMs developers, it can also be used to guide the research design in the measurement tool development process for reducing bias. At present, similar assessment tools are lacking in China. Therefore, this article aims to introduce the primary contents of COSMIN-RoB checklist and to interpret how to evaluate risk of bias of the internal structure studies of PROMs with examples.
The postoperative symptom burden in patients with lung cancer is severe and adversely impairs their quality of life. Symptom management is the cornerstone of medical care. Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom management is being increasingly recognized as the best "patient-centered care" model in clinical practice. However, the precise implementation of this model in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery is hindered by the lack of a lung cancer surgery-specific scale, implementation standards, clinical application parameters and high-quality researches. The use of a precise and simple PRO scale and an electronic PRO platform may greatly improve the feasibility of implementing this model. Currently, the application of PRO-based symptom management in lung cancer surgery is still being explored and needs to be improved in clinical research and practice.
The estimation of the minimal important difference (MID) in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) relies on various selection principles and statistical methods, resulting in varying degrees of credibility among studies. When applying these findings, it is crucial to consider their evaluation outcomes. In the context of widely accepted MID studies based on the anchoring method, the credibility of the MID of PRO is influenced by the selection of anchors and the statistical methods employed for estimation. Variations in the anchors utilized, differences in clinical trial designs, disparities in the characteristics of measurement subjects and environment, as well as the control of biases in studies, can all contribute to inconsistencies in the MID of PRO. In response to this, McMaster University in Canada has developed a credibility evaluation tool specifically for MID studies in PRO. The tool comprises five core items and four additional items. The five core items encompass an evaluation framework that assesses: (1) Is the patient or necessary proxy responding directly to both the PRO and the anchor? (2) Is the anchor easily understandable and relevant for patients or necessary proxy? (3)Has the anchor shown good correlation with the PRO? (4) Is the MID precise? (5) Does the threshold or difference between groups on the anchor used to estimate the MID reflect a small but important difference? The four additional items concerning transition-rated anchors assess: (1) Is the amount of elapsed time between baseline and follow-up measurement for MID estimation optimal? (2) Does the transition item have a satisfactory correlation with the PRO score at follow-up? (3) Does the transition item correlate with the PRO score at baseline? (4) Is the correlation of the transition item with the PRO change score appreciably greater than the correlation of the transition item with the PRO score at follow-up? Given the relative weights of each item in the tool are uncertain and environment-dependent, items are not scored; instead, an overall judgment is made using a qualitative rating approach. This article introduces the specific items of this tool and illustrates the evaluation process through a case study to improve its use in optimizing PRO results presentation and interpretation in clinical trials, reviews, assessments, and guidelines.
Cardiac surgery is associated with high risks, significant trauma, and long recovery periods. With advances in cardiac surgery techniques, the mortality rate and incidence of complications have been steadily decreasing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gradually become an important area of research in postoperative recovery of cardiac surgery. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in this field helps to reflect patients' physiological, psychological, and social functioning during recovery, and provides scientific evidence for clinical interventions, which may further improve prognosis and enhance patient recovery experience. This paper reviews the dimensions of PROMs in the field of cardiac surgery recovery, the current status of existing PROMs scales, and the progress of their application, while also identifying the limitations of the existing tools. Finally, it explores future research directions for PROMs in cardiac surgery patients.
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) has been paid increasing attention in lung cancer surgery. It has gradually become an important outcome indicator in clinical research of lung cancer surgery and an important tool for symptom management. Commonly used lung cancer-specific PRO measurement tools include: Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and Lung Cancer module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer module, Postoperative Symptom Scale for Lung Cancer Patients, and Perioperative Symptom Assessment for Lung Surgery. The application of lung cancer-specific scales lacks authoritative implementation norms in the field of lung cancer surgery in terms of scale selection, data collection, and outcome application. This review aimed to analyze the current status of application of PRO scales in lung cancer surgery.
ObjectiveTo categorize and describe stroke-patients based on factors related to patient reported outcomes. MethodsA questionnaire survey was conducted among stroke-patients in nine hospitals and communities in Shanxi Province. The general information questionnaire and stroke-patient reported outcome manual (Stroke-PROM) were completed. Latent profile analysis was used to analyze the scores of Stroke-PROM, and the explicit variables of the model were the final scores of each dimension. ANOVA and correlation analysis were used to measure the correlation between the factors and subtypes. ResultsFour unique stroke-patient profiles emerged, including a low physiological and low social group (9%), a high physiological and middle social group (40%), a middle physiological and middle social group (26%), and a middle physiological and high social group (25%). There were significant differences in scores of four areas among patients with different subtypes (P<0.05). Moreover, there was a correlation between age, payment, exercise and subtypes (P<0.05). ConclusionThere are obvious grouping characteristics for stroke patients. It is necessary to focus on stroke patients who are advanced in age, have a self-funded status and lack exercise, and provide targeted nursing measures to improve their quality of life.
Objective To comprehensively analyze the research trends in the reported outcomes for lung cancer patients and related management, reveal research hotspots and trends, and provide references for future related research. Methods We searched for relevant literature in the Web of Science core collection, PubMed, and Scopus databases from inception to December 31, 2023. CiteSpace bibliometric software was used to analyze the distribution of authors, countries and regions, research institutions, keyword co-occurrence, keyword burst, and to generate keyword clusters and timeline analysis maps. Results A total of 478 qualified publications were included, and the number of published papers showed an overall upward trend. The highest number of articles was published in the United States. The journal with the highest number of articles was Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, and the journal with the highest citation frequency was Journal of Clinical Oncology. The results of keyword burst analysis showed that hot topics mainly focused on areas such as prospective study, physical activity, exercise, vomiting, survival. ConclusionAlthough the research on lung cancer surgical treatment and the management of patients is developing rapidly, the application of management based on reported outcomes of lung cancer patients is still at a nascent stage, and needs to be continuously improved in clinical research and practice. The establishment of relevant assessment systems needs to be improved. In the future, more researchers need to focus on this area, strengthen multi-regional and multi-institutional collaborations, and accelerate research progress in the management of reported outcomes in lung cancer patients.
Objective To analyse the consistency of perioperative self-reported pain scores of lung cancer patients with clinical records to provide a basis for optimal pain management. MethodsThe patients with lung cancer who underwent surgical treatment in the Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital from November 2017 to January 2020 were selected. They were divided into two groups based on the source of pain data. The self-report group used a questionnaire in which patients self-reported their pain scores, and the pain scores for the clinical record group were extracted from the electronic medical record system. Kappa test was used to compare the concordance of pain scores between the two groups preoperatively, on postoperative 1-6 days and on the day of discharge. McNemar's paired χ2 test was used to compare the differences in pain intensity levels between the two groups. Binary logistic multi-factor regression was used to analyse the factors influencing the concordance of severe pain (7-10 points) between the two groups. Results Totally 354 patients were collected, including 191 males and 163 females, with an average age of 55.64±10.34 years. The median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. The consistency of pain scores between the two groups was poor (Kappa=–0.035 to 0.262, P<0.05), and the distribution of pain levels at each time point was inconsistent and statistically significant (P<0.001). The percentage of inconsistent severe pain assessment ranged from 0.28% to 35.56%, with the highest percentage of inconsistent severe pain assessment on postoperative day 1 (35.56%). Single-port thoracoscopic surgical access was an influencing factor for inconsistent assessment of severe pain on postoperative day 3 (OR=2.571, P=0.005). Conclusion Self-reported perioperative pain scores of lung cancer patients are poorly aligned with clinical records. Clinical measures are needed to improve the accuracy of patient pain data reporting by choosing the correct assessment method, increasing education, and developing effective quality control measures.