Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review.
Journal
BJS open
ISSN: 2474-9842
Titre abrégé: BJS Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101722685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 05 2022
02 05 2022
Historique:
received:
29
11
2021
revised:
24
02
2022
accepted:
06
04
2022
entrez:
7
6
2022
pubmed:
8
6
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included. A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery. This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS
A PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.
RESULTS
A total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
This study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35668711
pii: 6603491
doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrac062
pmc: PMC9171002
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.
Références
BMJ Open Qual. 2020 Mar;9(1):
pubmed: 32198234
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Aug 28;99(35):e21683
pubmed: 32871883
Am J Surg. 2020 Jun;219(6):1039-1044
pubmed: 31526511
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2019 Feb;23(1):20-33
pubmed: 30863804
Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2017 Jan-Mar;30(1):3-6
pubmed: 28489158
Arq Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr-Jun;53(2):103-7
pubmed: 27305417
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2019 Jun;8(3):228-245
pubmed: 31245403
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2013 Dec;14(6):512-9
pubmed: 24274058
PLoS One. 2018 Aug 30;13(8):e0202266
pubmed: 30161169
World J Surg. 2016 Jan;40(1):81-8
pubmed: 26319262
J Am Coll Surg. 2018 Feb;226(2):183-193.e5
pubmed: 29154921
Am J Surg. 2011 Jul;202(1):45-52
pubmed: 21600559
ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6
pubmed: 12956787
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jun;27(6):1896-906
pubmed: 23269370
HPB (Oxford). 2018 Sep;20(9):786-794
pubmed: 29650299
Surg Endosc. 2011 Oct;25(10):3379-84
pubmed: 21556991
Surgery. 2019 Feb;165(2):353-359
pubmed: 30314725
BMJ Open. 2021 Jun 24;11(6):e045568
pubmed: 34168025
Surg Endosc. 2013 Dec;27(12):4491-8
pubmed: 23943114
Surg Endosc. 2017 Aug;31(8):3242-3250
pubmed: 27864724
Health Policy. 2021 Sep;125(9):1247-1255
pubmed: 34311981
Med Sci Monit. 2020 Sep 12;26:e924946
pubmed: 32918441
Pragmat Obs Res. 2018 Oct 25;9:69-75
pubmed: 30498388
Surg Endosc. 2013 Mar;27(3):709-18
pubmed: 23052498
World J Surg. 2017 May;41(5):1234-1238
pubmed: 28074277
BMJ Open. 2016 Oct 3;6(10):e012281
pubmed: 27697875
Surg Endosc. 2019 Jul;33(7):2061-2071
pubmed: 30937619
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jul;23(7):534-42
pubmed: 24508681
Ann Surg. 2011 Jul;254(1):22-7
pubmed: 21494123
Ann Surg. 2015 Nov;262(5):728-34; discussion 734-5
pubmed: 26583659
Surg Endosc. 2017 Jul;31(7):2872-2880
pubmed: 27778171
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Ann Surg. 2022 Mar 1;275(3):500-505
pubmed: 32657935
Br J Surg. 2013 Feb;100(3):339-49
pubmed: 23188563
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 Jul;221(1):111-21
pubmed: 26095558
Br J Surg. 2011 Dec;98(12):1695-702
pubmed: 21964736
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22
pubmed: 23443445
Br J Surg. 2013 Jun;100(7):886-94
pubmed: 23640665
Surgery. 2018 Apr;163(4):661-666
pubmed: 29133112
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Nov;215(5):702-8
pubmed: 22819642
Surg Endosc. 2020 Nov;34(11):4727-4740
pubmed: 32661706
Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2018 Jun 14;32:1-5
pubmed: 29928499