Systematic review of patient‐reported outcome measures in patients with varicose veins. BJS 2017; 104: 1424-1432.
Published: 3rd August 2017
Authors: A. Aber, E. Poku, P. Phillips, M. Essat, H. Buckley Woods, S. Palfreyman et al.
Varicose veins can affect quality of life. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a direct report from the patient about the impact of the disease without interpretation from clinicians or anyone else. 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. Literature searches were 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.
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 evidence from included studies provided data to support the construct validity, test–retest reliability and responsiveness of the AVVQ. However, its content validity, including weighting of the AVVQ questions, was biased and based on the opinion of clinicians, and the instrument had poor acceptability. VVSymQ® displayed good responsiveness and acceptability rates. SF‐36® was considered to have satisfactory responsiveness and internal consistency.
There is a scarcity of psychometric evidence for PROMs used in patients with varicose veins. These data suggest that AVVQ and SF‐36® are the most rigorously evaluated PROMs in patients with varicose veins.Read more
You may also be interested in
Meta‐analysis of the costs of carotid artery stenting and carotid endarterectomy. BJS 2017; 104: 1284-1292.
Authors: E. E. de Vries, V. G. M. Baldew, H. M. den Ruijter, G. J. de Borst
Authors: T. R. A. Lane, L. Varatharajan, F. Fiorentino, A. C. Shepherd, L. Zimmo, M. S. Gohel et al.
Notes: Diameter unreliable predictor of disease severity and PROMs
Authors: D. A. Sidloff, A. Saratzis, M. J. Sweeting, J. Michaels, J. T. Powell, S. G. Thompson et al.
Notes: Mortality double in women
Time‐dependent trends in cardiovascular adverse events during follow‐up after carotid or iliofemoral endarterectomy. BJS 2017; 104: 1477-1485.
Authors: I. D. van Koeverden, S. T. W. van Haelst, S. Haitjema, J.‐P. P. M. de Vries, F. L. Moll, H. M. den Ruijter et al.
Notes: No decline in events
Association between metformin prescription and growth rates of abdominal aortic aneurysms. BJS 2017; 104: 1486-1493.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. Moxon, J. Pinchbeck, G. Anderson, S. Rowbotham, J. Jenkins et al.
Notes: Worth an RCT
Systematic review of carotid artery procedures and the volume–outcome relationship in Europe. BJS 2017; 104: 1273-1283.
Authors: P. Phillips, E. Poku, M. Essat, H. B. Woods, E. A. Goka, E. C. Kaltenthaler et al.
Notes: More justification for higher‐volume centres
Systematic review of mortality risk prediction models in the era of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. BJS 2017; 104: 964-976.
Authors: N. Lijftogt, T. W. F. Luijnenburg, A. C. Vahl, E. D. Wilschut, V. J. Leijdekkers, M. F. Fiocco et al.
Notes: No more please
Long‐term follow‐up of fenestrated endovascular repair for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2017; 104: 1020-1027.
Authors: I. N. Roy, A. M. Millen, S. M. Jones, S. R. Vallabhaneni, J. R. H. Scurr, R. G. McWilliams et al.
Notes: Prevents aneurysm rupture
Endophlebectomy of the common femoral vein and arteriovenous fistula creation as adjuncts to venous stenting for post‐thrombotic syndrome. BJS 2017; 104: 718-725.
Authors: M. A. F. de Wolf, H. Jalaie, J. H. H. van Laanen, R. L. M. Kurstjens, M. J. S. Mensinck, M. J. de Geus et al.
Notes: Two‐thirds improve
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and optimization in vascular surgery. BJS 2017; 104: 679-687.
Authors: J. S. L. Partridge, D. Harari, F. C. Martin, J. L. Peacock, R. Bell, A. Mohammed et al.
Notes: Better outcomes
Meta‐analysis of individual‐patient data from EVAR‐1, DREAM, OVER and ACE trials comparing outcomes of endovascular or open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm over 5 years. BJS 2017; 104: 166-178.
Authors: J. T. Powell, M. J. Sweeting, P. Ulug, J. D. Blankensteijn, F. A. Lederle, J.‐P. Becquemin et al.
Notes: Survival comparable