Systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of patient-reported outcome measures for abdominal aortic aneurysm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim was to identify and evaluate existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform the selection for use in surgical practice. METHODS: Two reviews were conducted: a systematic review to identify valid, reliable and acceptable PROMs for patients with an AAA, and a qualitative evidence synthesis to assess the relevance to patients of the identified PROM items. PROM studies were evaluated for their psychometric properties using established assessment criteria, and for their methodological quality using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative studies were synthesized using framework analysis, and concepts identified were then triangulated using a protocol with the item concepts of the identified PROMs. RESULTS: Four PROMs from three studies were identified in the first review: Short Form 36, Australian Vascular Quality of Life Index, Aneurysm Dependent Quality of Life (AneurysmDQoL) and Aneurysm Symptoms Rating Questionnaire (AneurysmSRQ). None of the identified PROMs had undergone a rigorous psychometric evaluation within the AAA population. Four studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, from which 28 concepts important to patients with an AAA were identified. The AneurysmDQoL and AneurysmSRQ together provided the most comprehensive assessment of these concepts. Fear of rupture, control, ability to forget about the condition and size of aneurysm were all concepts identified in the qualitative studies but not covered by items in the identified PROMs. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to develop PROMs for AAA that are reliable, valid and acceptable to patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.327 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".