Premium
Patient‐reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting
Author(s) -
Coulman K. D.,
Abdelrahman T.,
OwenSmith A.,
Andrews R. C.,
Welbourn R.,
Blazeby J. M.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
obesity reviews
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.845
H-Index - 162
eISSN - 1467-789X
pISSN - 1467-7881
DOI - 10.1111/obr.12041
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , missing data , medline , limiting , clinical trial , reporting bias , systematic review , physical therapy , family medicine , surgery , mechanical engineering , machine learning , computer science , political science , law , engineering
Summary Bariatric surgery is increasingly being used to treat severe obesity, but little is known about its impact on patient‐reported outcomes ( PRO s). For PRO data to influence practice, well‐designed and reported studies are required. A systematic review identified prospective bariatric surgery studies that used validated PRO measures. Risk of bias in randomized controlled trials ( RCT s) was assessed, and papers were examined for reporting of (i) who completed PRO measures; (ii) missing PRO data and (iii) clinical interpretation of PRO data. Studies meeting all criteria were classified as robust. Eighty‐six studies were identified. Of the eight RCT s, risk of bias was high in one and unclear in seven. Sixty‐eight different PRO measures were identified, with the S hort F orm ( SF )‐36 questionnaire most commonly used. Forty‐one (48%) studies explicitly stated measures were completed by patients, 63 (73%) documented missing PRO data and 50 (58%) interpreted PRO data clinically. Twenty‐six (30%) met all criteria. Although many bariatric surgery studies assess PRO s, study design and reporting is often poor, limiting data interpretation and synthesis. Well‐designed studies that include agreed PRO measures are needed with reporting to include integration with clinical outcomes to inform practice.