Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is crucial for identifying high-quality PROMs for research and clinical practice. It ensures reliable health outcomes data collection. But current PROMs systematic evaluation reports vary in quality and have many defects. To address this, in 2024, the guideline research team updated and published the COSMIN guideline V2.0 for PROMs systematic evaluation and two other tools in the Quality of Life Research. This paper interprets the guideline development team, method, and the core content of the COSMIN guideline V2.0. It also uses specific examples to promote standardized PROMs selection and clinical application, aiming to help domestic researchers improve the quality of such systematic evaluations.
In recent years, the Chengdu Municipal Thoracic Surgery Quality Control Center has preliminarily established a regional quality control system for thoracic surgery through the development of standards, data reporting, and on-site supervision, achieving phased improvements. This review summarizes the current development of Chengdu’s thoracic surgery quality control system, including its organizational structure and scoring methodology, quality indicators based on structure–process–outcome, information technology infrastructure, and multicenter collaboration experiences, and outlines trends in surgical volume, minimally invasive procedure rates, human resources, and care quality metrics. It also analyzes existing challenges such as inter-hospital quality disparities and insufficient interoperability among information platforms. Drawing on domestic and international best practices, we propose development strategies to further enhance the homogenization and continuous improvement of thoracic surgery quality in the region. The Chengdu experience could offer a valuable model for building regional thoracic surgery quality control systems nationwide and for integration with the national quality control platform.
Measurement properties studies of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) aims to validate the measurement properties of PROMs. In the process of designing and statistical analysis of these measurement properties studies, bias will occur if there are any defects, which will affect the quality of PROMs. Therefore, the COSMIN (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments) team has developed the COSMIN risk of bias (COSMIN-RoB) checklist to evaluate risk of bias of studies on measurement properties of PROMs. The checklist can be used to develop systematic reviews of PROMs measurement properties, and for PROMs developers, it can also be used to guide the research design in the measurement tool development process for reducing bias. At present, similar assessment tools are lacking in China. Therefore, this article aims to introduce the primary contents of COSMIN-RoB checklist and to interpret how to evaluate risk of bias of the internal structure studies of PROMs with examples.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) measure attribute studies refer to studies conducted by investigators to validate the measurement attributes of PROM. The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN), an international consensus standard for the selection of health measurement instruments, divides this attribute into three aspects: reliability, validity and responsiveness, and adds interpretability as an additional important feature for evaluating PROM. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the verification methods and principles of the three major measurement attributes in the COSMIN consensus, as well as the significance and direction of interpretability evaluation, and to provide international methodological experience and reference for the development of high-quality PROM psychometric attribute verification in China.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
Patient-reported outcome (PRO) has been paid increasing attention in lung cancer surgery. It has gradually become an important outcome indicator in clinical research of lung cancer surgery and an important tool for symptom management. Commonly used lung cancer-specific PRO measurement tools include: Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and Lung Cancer module, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer module, Postoperative Symptom Scale for Lung Cancer Patients, and Perioperative Symptom Assessment for Lung Surgery. The application of lung cancer-specific scales lacks authoritative implementation norms in the field of lung cancer surgery in terms of scale selection, data collection, and outcome application. This review aimed to analyze the current status of application of PRO scales in lung cancer surgery.
Cardiac surgery is associated with high risks, significant trauma, and long recovery periods. With advances in cardiac surgery techniques, the mortality rate and incidence of complications have been steadily decreasing. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gradually become an important area of research in postoperative recovery of cardiac surgery. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in this field helps to reflect patients' physiological, psychological, and social functioning during recovery, and provides scientific evidence for clinical interventions, which may further improve prognosis and enhance patient recovery experience. This paper reviews the dimensions of PROMs in the field of cardiac surgery recovery, the current status of existing PROMs scales, and the progress of their application, while also identifying the limitations of the existing tools. Finally, it explores future research directions for PROMs in cardiac surgery patients.
With the transformation of modern medical models, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, and performance outcomes have become internationally recognized clinical outcome assessment indicators, and scales have also become important evaluation tools, among which translation and cross-cultural adaptation are one of the important sources of scales. However, at present, there are fewer guidelines for scale translation in China. At present, domestic scale translation has not yet been unified and standardized in clinical reporting. Most translation reports provide readers with incomplete information, which affects the development of scale translation, and the methodology related to the translation of clinical outcome assessment scales still focuses on patient-reported outcome scales, which creates a gap in terms of the recommendations for the rest of the types of translations, a gap which leads to inconsistencies in the translation methodology and process. In this paper, we will develop specific translation methods and processes for each of the four current types of clinical outcome assessments by combining scale translation guidelines to support a standardized approach to translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation for use in standardizing the process of recommending translations of patient-reported outcome scales, clinical-reported outcome scales, observer-reported outcome scales, and behavioral outcome scales.
The postoperative symptom burden in patients with lung cancer is severe and adversely impairs their quality of life. Symptom management is the cornerstone of medical care. Patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom management is being increasingly recognized as the best "patient-centered care" model in clinical practice. However, the precise implementation of this model in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery is hindered by the lack of a lung cancer surgery-specific scale, implementation standards, clinical application parameters and high-quality researches. The use of a precise and simple PRO scale and an electronic PRO platform may greatly improve the feasibility of implementing this model. Currently, the application of PRO-based symptom management in lung cancer surgery is still being explored and needs to be improved in clinical research and practice.
The estimation of the minimal important difference (MID) in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) relies on various selection principles and statistical methods, resulting in varying degrees of credibility among studies. When applying these findings, it is crucial to consider their evaluation outcomes. In the context of widely accepted MID studies based on the anchoring method, the credibility of the MID of PRO is influenced by the selection of anchors and the statistical methods employed for estimation. Variations in the anchors utilized, differences in clinical trial designs, disparities in the characteristics of measurement subjects and environment, as well as the control of biases in studies, can all contribute to inconsistencies in the MID of PRO. In response to this, McMaster University in Canada has developed a credibility evaluation tool specifically for MID studies in PRO. The tool comprises five core items and four additional items. The five core items encompass an evaluation framework that assesses: (1) Is the patient or necessary proxy responding directly to both the PRO and the anchor? (2) Is the anchor easily understandable and relevant for patients or necessary proxy? (3)Has the anchor shown good correlation with the PRO? (4) Is the MID precise? (5) Does the threshold or difference between groups on the anchor used to estimate the MID reflect a small but important difference? The four additional items concerning transition-rated anchors assess: (1) Is the amount of elapsed time between baseline and follow-up measurement for MID estimation optimal? (2) Does the transition item have a satisfactory correlation with the PRO score at follow-up? (3) Does the transition item correlate with the PRO score at baseline? (4) Is the correlation of the transition item with the PRO change score appreciably greater than the correlation of the transition item with the PRO score at follow-up? Given the relative weights of each item in the tool are uncertain and environment-dependent, items are not scored; instead, an overall judgment is made using a qualitative rating approach. This article introduces the specific items of this tool and illustrates the evaluation process through a case study to improve its use in optimizing PRO results presentation and interpretation in clinical trials, reviews, assessments, and guidelines.