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.Full text
You may also be interested in
Population‐based study of mortality and major amputation following lower limb revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 1145-1154.
Authors: K. Heikkila, I. M. Loftus, D. C. Mitchell, A. S. Johal, S. Waton, D. A. Cromwell et al.
Notes: lower than previously estimated
Cost‐effectiveness of population‐based vascular disease screening and intervention in men from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial.
Authors: R. Søgaard, J. S. Lindholt
Notes: Highly cost effective
Five‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing open surgery, foam sclerotherapy and endovenous laser ablation for great saphenous varicose veins. BJS 2018; 105: 686-691.
Authors: S. Vähäaho, K. Halmesmäki, A. Albäck, E. Saarinen, M. Venermo
Notes: More foam recurrences
Eight‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial comparing ultrasound‐guided foam sclerotherapy with surgical stripping of the great saphenous vein. BJS 2018; 105: 692-698.
Authors: Y. L. Lam, J. A. Lawson, I. M. Toonder, N. H. Shadid, A. Sommer, M. Veenstra et al.
Notes: Surgery better
Value of risk scores in the decision to palliate patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. BJS 2018; 105: 1135-1144.
Authors: M. J. Sweeting, P. Ulug, J. Roy, R. Hultgren, R. Indrakusuma, R. Balm et al.
Notes: Not much help
Follow‐up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair can be stratified based on first postoperative imaging. BJS 2018; 105: 709-718.
Authors: H. Baderkhan, O. Haller, A. Wanhainen, M. Björck, K. Mani
Notes: Short sealing zones spell trouble
Risk of major amputation in patients with intermittent claudication undergoing early revascularization. BJS 2018; 105: 699-708.
Authors: J. Golledge, J. V. Moxon, S. Rowbotham, J. Pinchbeck, L. Yip, R. Velu et al.
Notes: Early revascularization associated with amputation
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
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
Comparative analysis of the outcomes of elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in England and Sweden. BJS 2018; 105: 520-528.
Authors: A. Karthikesalingam, M. J. Grima, P. J. Holt, A. Vidal‐Diez, M. M. Thompson, A. Wanhainen et al.
Notes: Improving in England
Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. BJS 2018; 105: 529-534.
Authors: A. J. Quyn, C. G. Fraser, J. Rodger, A. Digan, A. S. Anderson, R. J. C. Steele et al.
Notes: Maximizing screening benefits