Search

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures address the need for patient-centered data and are now used in diverse clinical, research, and policy pursuits. They are important in conditions causing upper airway-related dyspnea in which the patient's reported experience and physiological data can be discrepant., Objectives: To perform a systematic review of the literature on upper airway dyspnea-related PRO measures and to rigorously evaluate each measure's developmental properties, validation, and applicability., Evidence Review: This study strictly adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Health and Psychosocial Instruments (HaPI) database were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and upper airway-related dyspnea. Three investigators performed abstract review, and 2 investigators independently performed full-text review by applying an established checklist to evaluate the conceptual model, content validity, reliability, construct validity, scoring and interpretability, and respondent burden and presentation of each identified instrument. The initial literature search was conducted in November 2014 and was updated in April 2016., Findings: Of 1269 studies reviewed, 3 upper airway-related dyspnea PRO measures met criteria for inclusion. One PRO measure was designed de novo to assess upper airway-related dyspnea symptoms and monitor treatment outcomes, while 2 were adapted from established instruments designed for lower airway disease. Measurement properties and psychometric characteristics differed, and none met all checklist criteria. Two met a criterion in each of 7 domains evaluated. Two demonstrated test-retest and internal consistency reliability, and 2 showed that their scores were responsive to change. Thematic deficiencies in current upper airway-related dyspnea PRO measures are lack of patient involvement in item development (content validity), plan for interpretation, and literacy level assessments., Conclusions and Relevance: PRO measures are critical in the assessment of patients with upper airway-related dyspnea. Three instruments with disparate developmental rigor have been designed or adapted to assess this construct. Care must be taken to understand the measurement characteristics and contextual relevance before applying these PRO measures for clinical, research, or quality initiatives.

Objective: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are commonly used to capture patient experience with dysphagia and to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Inappropriate application can lead to distorted results in clinical studies. A systematic review of the literature on dysphagia-related PRO measures was performed to (1) identify all currently available measures and (2) to evaluate each for the presence of important measurement properties that would affect their applicability., Design: MEDLINE via the PubMed interface, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument database were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and dysphagia. Three independent investigators performed abstract and full text reviews. Each study meeting criteria was evaluated using an 18-item checklist developed a priori that assessed multiple domains: (1) conceptual model, (2) content validity, (3) reliability, (4) construct validity, (6) scoring and interpretation, and (7) burden and presentation., Results: Of 4950 abstracts reviewed, a total of 34 dysphagia-related PRO measures (publication year 1987-2014) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Several PRO measures were of high quality (MADS for achalasia, SWAL-QOL and SSQ for oropharyngeal dysphagia, PROMIS-GI for general dysphagia, EORTC-QLQ-OG25 for esophageal cancer, ROMP-swallowing for Parkinson's Disease, DSQ-EoE for eosinophilic esophagitis, and SOAL for total laryngectomy-related dysphagia). In all, 17 met at least one criterion per domain. Thematic deficiencies in current measures were evident including: (1) direct patient involvement in content development, (2) empirically justified dimensionality, (3) demonstrable responsiveness to change, (4) plan for interpreting missing responses, and (5) literacy level assessment., Conclusion: This is the first comprehensive systematic review assessing developmental properties of all available dysphagia-related PRO measures. We identified several instruments with robust measurement properties in multiple diseases including achalasia, oropharyngeal dysphagia, post-surgical dysphagia, esophageal cancer, and dysphagia related to neurological diseases. Findings herein can assist clinicians and researchers in making more informed decisions in selecting the most fundamentally sound PRO measure for a given clinical, research, or quality initiative., (© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are often used to diagnose laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and monitor treatment outcomes in clinical and research settings. The present systematic review was designed to identify currently available LPR-related PRO measures and to evaluate each measure's instrument development, validation, and applicability., Data Sources: MEDLINE via PubMed interface, CINAHL, and Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched with relevant vocabulary and key terms related to PRO measures and LPR., Review Methods: Three investigators independently performed abstract review and full text review, applying a previously developed checklist to critically assess measurement properties of each study meeting inclusion criteria., Results: Of 4947 studies reviewed, 7 LPR-related PRO measures (publication years, 1991-2010) met criteria for extraction and analysis. Two focused on globus and throat symptoms. Remaining measures were designed to assess LPR symptoms and monitor treatment outcomes in patients. None met all checklist criteria. Only 2 of 7 used patient input to devise item content, and 2 of 7 assessed responsiveness to change. Thematic deficiencies in current LPR-related measures are inadequately demonstrated: content validity, construct validity, plan for interpretation, and literacy level assessment., Conclusion: Laryngopharyngeal reflux is often diagnosed according to symptoms. Currently available LPR-related PRO measures used to symptomatically identify suspected LPR patients have disparate developmental rigor and important methodological deficiencies. Care should be exercised to understand the measurement characteristics and contextual relevance before applying these PRO measures for clinical, research, or quality initiatives., (© American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2016.)