For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
13
views
48
references
 Top references
cited by
17
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      2,458
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      How Do We Value Postoperative Recovery? : A Systematic Review of the Measurement Properties of Patient-reported Outcomes After Abdominal Surgery

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To appraise the level of evidence supporting the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the context of postoperative recovery after abdominal surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned.

          Alarcos Cieza, Szilvia Geyh, Somnath Chatterji … (2005)
          Outcome research seeks to understand the end results of health services. Researchers use a wide variety of outcome measures including technical, clinical and patient-oriented measures. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a common reference framework for functioning may contribute to improved outcome research. The objective of this paper is to provide an updated version of the linking rules published in 2002 and illustrate how these rules are applied to link technical and clinical measures, health-status measures and interventions to the ICF. Three specific linking rules have been established to link health-status measures to the ICF and one specific linking rule has been created to link technical and clinical measures and interventions. A total of 8 linking rules have been established for use with all different outcome measures and with interventions. The newly updated linking rules will allow researchers systematically to link and compare meaningful concepts contained in them. This should prove extremely useful in selecting the most appropriate outcome measures among a number of candidate measures for the applied interventions. Further possible applications are the operationalization of concrete ICF categories using specific measures or the creation of ICF category-based item bankings.
          Article 0 comments Cited 245 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales.

            Paul S Myles, Daniel Myles, Wendy Galagher … (2016)
            Several quality of recovery (QoR) health status scales have been developed to quantify the patient's experience after anesthesia and surgery, but to date, it is unclear what constitutes the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). That is, what minimal change in score would indicate a meaningful change in a patient's health status?
            Article 0 comments Cited 139 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving beyond misplaced common sense to hard science

              Stephen McKenna (2011)
              Interest in the patient's views of his or her illness and treatment has increased dramatically. However, our ability to appropriately measure such issues lags far behind the level of interest and need. Too often such measurement is considered to be a simple and trivial activity that merely requires the application of common sense. However, good quality measurement of patient-reported outcomes is a complex activity requiring considerable expertise and experience. This review considers the most important issues related to such measurement in the context of chronic disease and details how instruments should be developed, validated and adapted for use in additional languages. While there is often consensus on how best to undertake these activities, there is generally little evidence to support such accord. The present article questions these orthodox views and suggests alternative approaches that have been shown to be effective.
              Article 0 comments Cited 105 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: Annals of Surgery
                Abbreviated Title: Annals of Surgery
                Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                ISSN (Print): 0003-4932
                Publication date Created: 2018
                Publication date (Print): April 2018
                Volume: 267
                Issue: 4
                Pages: 656-669
                Article
                DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002415
                PubMed ID: 28767559
                SO-VID: f0e65f3c-410a-47f9-8dae-1c8c0f8d18c6
                Copyright © © 2018
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content2,458

                See all similar

                Cited by16

                See all cited by