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
Risk of major amputation in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing early revascularization.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. V. Moxon, S. Rowbotham, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, R. Velu et al.
Notes: Early revascularization associated with amputation
Cellular and molecular imaging of the arteries in the age of precision medicine. BJS 2018; 105: 311-312.
Authors: R. O. Forsythe, D. E. Newby
Authors: R. E. Clough, R. Spear, K. Van Calster, A. Hertault, R. Azzaoui, J. Sobocinski et al.
Notes: Encouraging results in expert hands
Authors: N. Rudarakanchana, M. P. Jenkins
Notes: Formidable challenge
Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden.
Authors: A. Karthikesalingam, M. J. Grima, P. J. Holt, A. Vidal‐Diez, M. M. Thompson, A. Wanhainen et al.
Notes: Improving in England
Authors: A. J. Quyn, C. G. Fraser, J. Rodger, A. Digan, A. S. Anderson, R. J. C. Steele et al.
Notes: Maximising screening benefits
Cerebral embolization, silent cerebral infarction and neurocognitive decline after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. BJS 2018; 105: 366-378.
Authors: A. H. Perera, N. Rudarakanchana, L. Monzon, C. D. Bicknell, B. Modarai, O. Kirmi et al.
Notes: Occurs in most
Nationwide analysis of risk factors for in‐hospital mortality in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. BJS 2018; 105: 379-387.
Authors: M. Trenner, A. Kuehnl, B. Reutersberg, M. Salvermoser, H.‐H. Eckstein
Notes: Women and elderly at higher risk
Authors: M. F. Bath, D. Sidloff, A. Saratzis, M. J. Bown, R. Pathak, M. Brooks et al.
Notes: Small initial reduction
Authors: S. Ball, S. Rogers, K. Kanesalingam, R. Taylor, E. Katsogridakis, C. McCollum et al.
Notes: Potential indication for treatment
Lessons learned about prevalence and growth rates of abdominal aortic aneurysms from a 25‐year ultrasound population screening programme. BJS 2018; 105: 68-74.
Authors: C. Oliver‐Williams, M. J. Sweeting, G. Turton, D. Parkin, D. Cooper, C. Rodd et al.
Notes: Growth rates unchanged but prevalence decreasing
Meta‐analysis of the procedural risks of carotid endarterectomy and carotid artery stenting over time. BJS 2018; 105: 26-36.
Authors: K. Lokuge, D. D. de Waard, A. Halliday, A. Gray, R. Bulbulia, B. Mihaylova et al.
Notes: Endarterectomy outcomes improving