患者报告结果指标 (PROM) 在肿瘤性外阴阴道缺损重建中的重要性:系统回顾

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Nicole E Speck, Julia Stoffel, Séverin Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Kristin M Schaefer, Loraine P Kouba, Florian Rüter, Céline Montavon, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Martin D Haug, Dirk J Schaefer, Tarek Ismail, Elisabeth A Kappos
{"title":"患者报告结果指标 (PROM) 在肿瘤性外阴阴道缺损重建中的重要性:系统回顾","authors":"Nicole E Speck, Julia Stoffel, Séverin Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Kristin M Schaefer, Loraine P Kouba, Florian Rüter, Céline Montavon, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Martin D Haug, Dirk J Schaefer, Tarek Ismail, Elisabeth A Kappos","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31100470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 10","pages":"6300-6313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nicole E Speck, Julia Stoffel, Séverin Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Kristin M Schaefer, Loraine P Kouba, Florian Rüter, Céline Montavon, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Martin D Haug, Dirk J Schaefer, Tarek Ismail, Elisabeth A Kappos\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/curroncol31100470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current oncology\",\"volume\":\"31 10\",\"pages\":\"6300-6313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506363/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100470\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)在评估整形手术后的结果方面越来越重要。这也适用于女性妇科或结肠直肠癌切除术后的外阴阴道缺损重建。本研究的目的是分析 PROM 工具在这一患者群体中的使用现状:通过在 Embase、Medline 和 Web of Science 中进行系统的文献检索,筛选出 1980 年后发表的英文研究,包括随机对照试验、队列研究和报告外阴阴道缺损重建的系列病例,如果这些研究还分析了生活质量 (QoL) 和/或 PROM,则将其纳入研究范围。对每项研究使用的 PROM 工具进行了提取、分析和比较:初选检索共获得 2576 篇摘要,其中 395 篇为全文检索。其中,50 篇文章报道了外阴阴道缺损重建,27 篇研究分析了 QoL。其中,17 篇符合本系统综述的纳入标准。经过全文筛选,确定了 14 种不同的 PROM 工具和 5 种单独的非标准化问卷。只有 22% 的研究使用了经过验证的 PROM 工具:结论:目前使用PROM工具评估肿瘤性外阴阴道缺损重建术结果的研究太少。结论:目前使用PROM工具评估肿瘤外阴阴道缺损重建术疗效的研究太少,只有不到一半的PROM是经过验证的。没有任何 PROM 是专为测量此类患者的 QoL 而设计的。在此类患者的临床治疗中标准化使用经过验证的 PROM 工具是改善疗效、进行研究比较和支持循证治疗方法的关键步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.

Methods: By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.

Results: The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.

Conclusion: Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current oncology
Current oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
664
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease. We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信