Key result
A scoping review of 33 studies found that generic quantitative QoL scales showed poor alignment with the patient's perspective in elective AAA repair, missing key concerns like symptoms.
Why the study?
It was unclear whether generic quantitative quality of life scales adequately reflect the patient perspective and should be included in core outcome sets for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.
Do current quantitative quality of life scales adequately reflect the patient's perspective in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?
Systematic Review (n=33)
Do current quantitative quality of life scales adequately reflect the patient's perspective in elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair?
Current generic and aneurysm-specific quantitative QoL scales do not adequately capture the patient's perspective in elective AAA repair, highlighting the need for more comprehensive patient-centered outcome measures.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Current QoL scales may overlook patient priorities in elective AAA repair; leaves open need for aligned, patient-centered measures.
OBJECTIVE: In order to better incorporate the patient's perspective in medical decision making, core outcome sets (COS) are being defined. In the field of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), efforts to capture the patient's perspective focus on generic quantitative quality of life (QoL) scales. The question arises whether these quantitative scales adequately reflect the patient's perspective on QoL, and whether they can be included in the QoL aspect of COS. A scoping review of QoL assessment in the context of elective AAA repair was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: A scoping review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Articles reporting QoL assessment in the context of elective AAA repair were identified. Quantitative studies (i.e., traditional QoL scales) were aligned (triangulation approach) with qualitative studies (i.e., patient perspective) to identify parallels and discrepancies. Mean Short Form 36 item survey (SF-36) scores were pooled using a random effects model to evaluate sensitivity to change. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were identified, of which 29 (88%) were quantitative and four (12%) qualitative. The 33 studies reported a total of 54 quantitative QoL scales; the most frequently used were the generic SF-36 (16 studies) and five dimension EuroQol (EQ-5D; eight studies). Aneurysm specific scales were reported by one study. The generic quantitative scales showed poor alignment with the patient's perspective. The aneurysm specific scales better aligned but missed "concerns regarding symptoms" and "the impact of possible outcomes/complications". "Self control and decision making", which was brought forward by patients in qualitative studies, was not captured in any of the current scales. CONCLUSION: AAA disease, a more comprehensive overview of the patient's perspective is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bulder et al. (2021) conducted a systematic review in Elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (n=33). Quality of Life (QoL) scales was evaluated on Alignment of quantitative QoL scales with the patient's perspective. A scoping review of 33 studies found that generic quantitative QoL scales showed poor alignment with the patient's perspective in elective AAA repair, missing key concerns like symptoms.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: