z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Systematic review of patient‐reported outcome measures in patients with varicose veins
Author(s) -
Aber A.,
Poku E.,
Phillips P.,
Essat M.,
Buckley Woods H.,
Palfreyman S.,
Kaltenthaler E.,
Jones G.,
Michaels J.
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
british journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.202
H-Index - 201
eISSN - 1365-2168
pISSN - 0007-1323
DOI - 10.1002/bjs.10639
Subject(s) - varicose veins , medicine , patient reported outcome , quality of life (healthcare) , medline , construct validity , affect (linguistics) , physical therapy , psychometrics , internal consistency , disease , surgery , clinical psychology , pathology , nursing , linguistics , philosophy , political science , law
Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom