Poku E, Aber A, Phillips P, Essat M, Buckley Woods H, Palfreyman S, Kaltenthaler E, Jones G, Michaels J, et al.
BJS open. Date of publication 2017 Nov 13;volume 1(5):138-147.
1. BJS Open. 2017 Nov 13;1(5):138-147. doi: 10.1002/bjs5.25. eCollection 2017 Oct.
Systematic review assessing the measurement properties of patient-reported
outcomes for venous leg ulcers.
Poku E(1), Aber A(1), Phillips P(1), Essat M(1), Buckley Woods H(1), Palfreyman
S(2), Kaltenthaler E(1), Jones G(3), Michaels J(1).
Author information:
(1)School of Health and Related Research University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
(2)Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
Canada.
(3)School of Social Sciences Leeds Beckett University Leeds UK.
Background: A variety of instruments have been used to assess outcomes for
patients with venous leg ulcers. This study sought to identify, evaluate and
recommend the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for
English-speaking patients with venous leg ulcers.
Methods: This systematic review used a two-stage search approach. Electronic
searches of major databases including MEDLINE were completed in October 2015, and
then updated in July 2016. Additional studies were identified from citation
checking. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken
independently by at least two reviewers. Evaluation and summary of measurement
properties of identified PROMs were done using standard and adapted
study-relevant criteria.
Results: Ten studies with data for four generic PROMS and six condition-specific
measures were identified. No generic PROM showed adequate content and criterion
validity; however, the EuroQoL Five Dimensions (EQ-5D™), Nottingham Health
Profile (NHP) and 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12®) had good
acceptability. In general, the EQ-5D™ showed poor responsiveness in patients with
venous leg ulcers. Most condition-specific PROMs demonstrated poor criterion and
construct validity. Overall, there was some evidence of internal consistency for
the Venous Leg Ulcer Quality of Life (VLU-QoL) and the Sheffield Preference-based
Venous Ulcer questionnaire (SPVU-5D). Test-retest reliability was satisfactory
for the Venous Leg Ulcer Self-Efficacy Tool (VeLUSET).
Conclusion: The NHP and VLU-QoL questionnaire seemed the most suitable PROMs for
use by clinicians. However, a valid condition-specific PROM is still required.
DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.25
PMCID: PMC5989950
PMID: 29951616
