Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients With Varicose Veins
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Varicose veins can affect a patient's quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a direct report from the patient's perspective. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of the psychometric evidence for PROMs used in patients with varicose veins. A systematic review was undertaken to identify studies that reported the psychometric properties of generic and disease-specific PROMs in patients with varicose veins. A literature search was conducted in databases, including MEDLINE, up to July 2016. The psychometric criteria used to assess these studies were adapted from published recommendations in accordance with US Food and Drug Administration guidance. Of 3870 articles found, nine studies were included which reported on aspects of the development and/or validation of one generic (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, SF-36) and three disease-specific (Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire, AVVQ; Varicose Veins Symptoms Questionnaire, VVSymQ; Specific Quality-of-life and Outcome Response – Venous, SQOR-V) PROMs. The studies were generally small to moderate size (40-1700 patients) and included >50% women. Follow-up was short (immediately after treatment) to 12 months. Reliability is the ability to produce the same results when repeated in populations with similar characteristics as assessed by reproducibility (test-retest) and internal consistency (Cronbach's a score). Validity measures how well the PROM measures what it intends to measure (content validity, construct validity, criterion validity). Responsiveness is the ability to detect important change over time, if true change exists. Assessment of acceptability and floor or ceiling effect measures the completeness of the data. This review identified only one generic measure (SF-36) and three disease-specific instruments (AVVQ, VVSymQ, SQOPR-V) that have undergone psychometric assessment in patients with varicose veins. The evidence suggests that the SF-36 exhibits good internal consistency and acceptability among patients with varicose veins, with some evidence of construct validity and responsiveness. It is the only generic PROM with evidence to support its use in patients with varicose veins. The AVVQ had good test–retest reliability, construct and criterion validity, and responsiveness. However, the evidence for the content validity was weak, and clinicians and researchers generated the items with limited input from patients; the weighting of the items was based on the judgement of two clinicians. However, it was the most evaluated PROM with five studies examining its psychometric validity. The detailed methods of analysis are well explained in the manuscript text.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,093 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».