Evaluative comparison of physician-based vs. patient-based outcomes in posterior lumbar fusion

Posterior lumbar fusion is a frequently performed procedure in spinal surgery. High percentages of good and excellent results are indicated by physicians. On the other hand patient-based outcomes are reported. Little is known about the correlations of these two assessment types. We aimed at their comparison. The analysis included 1013 patients with degenerative spinal disease or spondylolisthesis from an international spine registry, treated with posterior lumbar fusion. All patients were pre/postop assessed by physician-based McNab criteria (‘excellent’, ‘good’, ‘fair’, ‘poor’). Of these patients, 210 (mean age 61 years; 57% females) were in addition assessed by patient-based Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The remaining 803 patients (mean age 59 years; 56% females) were assessed by patient-based Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI), including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain as well as verbal self-rating (‘helped a lot’, ‘helped’, ‘helped only little’, ‘didn’t help’, ‘made things worse’). McNab criteria were compared to the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in ODI (12.8), in VAS back (1.2) and leg pain (1.6). We investigated the correlations between McNab criteria and these patient-based outcomes. In the ‘excellent’ group as rated by physicians, the proposed MCID was reached in 83% of patients for ODI, in 69% for VAS back and in 83% for VAS leg pain. All patients said the treatment had ‘helped’ or ‘helped a lot’. In the ‘good’ group 56% (ODI), 66% (back pain) and 86% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 96% of patients perceived the treatment as positive. In the ‘fair’ group 37% (ODI), 55% (back pain) and 63% (leg pain) reached the MCID. 49% had positive treatment considerations. The ‘poor’ group revealed 30% (ODI), 35% (back pain) and 44% (leg pain) of patients with reached MCID. Only 15% rated the treatment as positive. The Spearman correlation coefficients between McNab criteria on the one hand and ODI, back and leg pain as well as patients’ verbal self-rating on the other hand were 0.57, 0.37, 0.36 and 0.46 respectively. The comparison of physician and patient-based outcomes showed the highest correlations between McNab criteria and ODI, somewhat weaker correlations with patients’ self-rating and the weakest correlations with back and leg pain. Based on these findings, physicians’ evaluation of patient outcomes can be considered a valuable part of patient assessment, corresponding very well with patients’ perceptions of success or failure of spinal surgery.

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Patient-centered outcomes after subepithelial connective tissue grafts and coronally advanced flaps

The use of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and connective tissue graft (CTG) is a well-established procedure to cover single and multiple recessions and improve soft tissue esthetics. However, until now, there are still limited data evaluating patient morbidity, the fear of imminent tooth loss, and modification of sensitivity in surgical areas. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the patient-centered outcomes associated with CAF + CTG.

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes in borderline personality disorder.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) refers to measures that emphasize the subjective view of patients about their health-related conditions and behaviors. Typically, PROs include self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews. Defining PROs for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is particularly challenging given the disorder's high symptomatic heterogeneity, high comorbidity with other psychiatric conditions, highly fluctuating symptoms, weak correlations between symptoms and functional outcomes, and lack of valid and reliable experimental measures to complement self-report data. Here, we provide an overview of currently used BPD outcome measures and discuss them from clinical, psychometric, experimental, and patient perspectives. In addition, we review the most promising leads to improve BPD PROs, including the DSM-5 Section III, the Recovery Approach, Ecological Momentary Assessments, and novel experimental measures of social functioning that are associated with functional and social outcomes.