Methods
Search Strategy and Paper Identification
Paper Selection
Data Extraction
Data Analysis
Selection of PROM Instruments for Full COSMIN Evaluation
Measurement property | Definition |
---|---|
Internal consistency | The degree of the interrelatedness among the items; the extent to which scores for patients who have not changed are the same using different sets of items from same instrument |
Reliability | The proportion of the total variance in the measurements which is due to “true” differences between patients |
Measurement error | The systematic and random error of a patient’s score that is not attributed to true changes in the construct to be measured |
Content validity | The degree to which an instrument measures the construct(s) it purports to measure; the degree to which the content of an instrument is an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured |
Structural validity | The degree to which the scores of an instrument are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality of the construct to be measured |
Hypothesis testing for construct validity | The degree to which the scores of an instrument are consistent with hypotheses (for instance, with regard to internal relationships, relationships to scores of other instruments, or differences between relevant groups) based on the assumption that the instrument validly measures the construct to be measured; item construct validity |
Cross-cultural validity | The degree to which the performance of the items on a translated or culturally adapted instrument are an adequate reflection of the performance of the items of the original version of the instrument |
Criterion validity | The degree to which the scores of an instrument are an adequate reflection of a “gold standard” |
Responsiveness | The ability of an instrument to detect change over time in the construct to be measured; item responsiveness |
Evaluating Quality of the PROMs
Step 1. COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist
Step 2. Applying Criteria for Good Measurement Properties by Using Quality Criteria
2a: Content Validity
2b: Remaining Measurement Properties
Step 3. Summary of Evidence and Grading of Quality of Evidence
3a: Content Validity
3b: Remaining Measurement Properties
Results
Systematic Literature Search
Characteristics of Included PROMs
PROM/instrument (references) | Purpose/objective of study | Country (language in which the questionnaire was evaluated) | Type of admin/recall period | Constructs and subscales measured (no. of items) | COSMIN measurement properties evaluated |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BREAST Q (Pusic et al.19) | To develop a new patient-reported outcome measure to assess the unique outcome of breast surgery patients | USA and Canada | To comment on their satisfaction or aspects of HRQoL during the previous 2 weeks | Constructs: Satisfaction and HRQoL Three HRQoL domains: physical, psychosocial, and sexual wellbeing. Three satisfaction domains: breasts, outcome, and care (163 items) | Structural validity Acceptability Reliability-internal consistency Test–retest reproducibility Content validity Construct validity (hypothesis testing) Scale validity |
BREAST Q (Cano et al.20) | To independently validate BREAST Q and focus on the clinical interpretability of the instruments scores | USA and Canada | To comment on their satisfaction or aspects of HRQoL during the previous 2 weeks | Constructs: Breast reduction, augmentation, reconstruction, and mastectomy w/o reconstruction Six domains: satisfaction with breasts, satisfaction with overall outcome, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, physical well-being, satisfaction with care | Reliability-internal consistency and test–retest reliability Scale reliability Content validity Structural validity Construct validity (hypothesis testing) Clinical validity |
BREAST Q (Browne et al.21) | To develop two new measurement scales specifically for LD reconstruction patients to evaluate the esthetic and functional outcomes of LD flap BR and assess their psychometric properties | UK | Outcomes were measured 18 months after surgery | Back appearance scale (8 items) Back and shoulder function scale (11 items) | Structural validity Internal consistency (also measured person separation index) |
BREAST Q CAT (Young-Afat et al.31) | To develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) to shorten the BREAST Q’s satisfaction with breasts scale | USA | Constructs: Satisfaction with breasts scale only (of the reconstruction module) Satisfaction with breasts (10–16 items) | Internal consistency | |
Electronic version of BREAST Q (Fuzesi et al.32) | To evaluate the psychometric properties of an electronic version of the BREAST Q in a large online survey | USA | Constructs: QoL, satisfaction, and patient experience (17 items) | Acceptability Reliability (scale) Content validity Construct validity (hypothesis testing) Convergent validity Clinical validity Discriminant validity | |
BRECON (Temple et al.22) | To develop a valid, reliable, and responsive self-admin questionnaire to assess women’s satisfaction with BR | Canada | Average time from surgery to participation was 2.9 years | Constructs: HRQoL and satisfaction (100 items in total) | Content validity (a 100-item pilot questionnaire was developed for further psychometric testing) |
BRECON 31 (Temple-Oberle et al.23) | To develop a reliable and valid questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with BR | Canada | Feelings regarding BR within past 2 weeks | Constructs: HRQoL and satisfaction Self-image, arm concerns, intimacy, satisfaction, recovery, self-consciousness, expectations, appearance, nipple, abdomen (31 items) (with additional two subscales where applicable: 4 items for nipple recon and 10 items for abdominal donor site) | Internal consistency Reliability Construct validity Content validity Face validity Criterion validity |
BRECON 31 (Temple-Oberle et al.24) | To verify the subscale structure of the BRECON 31 using a test sample of women naïve to the questionnaire | Canada | Feelings regarding BR within past 2 weeks | Constructs: HRQoL and satisfaction Self-image, arm concerns, intimacy, satisfaction, recovery, self-consciousness, expectations, appearance, nipple, abdomen (31 items) (with two additional subscales where applicable: 4 items for nipple recon and 10 items for abdominal donor site) | Internal consistency Reliability Content validity Face validity |
EORTC QLQ BRECON (Thomson et al.25) | To develop and validate the first European multicultural BR specific pre- and post-op PROM | English, Italian, and Swedish translations | 3 years since BR (range 1–8 years) | Treatment or surgery related items Body image Sexuality Cosmetic outcome Overall satisfaction (Provisional module: 5 domains and 31 items) | A 31-item pilot questionnaire was developed for psychometric testing |
EORTC QLQ-BRECON (BRR) 26 (Winters et al.26) | To carry out phase three pretesting of the provisional 31 item EORTC QLQ-BRR questionnaire and assess the relevance, acceptability, and redundancy of Qu/items | English, German, Italian, Swedish, Dutch, and French translations | 1–5 years after BR | Provisional three scales (HRQoL): Disease treatment/surgery related symptoms Sexuality Cosmetic outcome (provisional scales were reduced from 31 to 26 items) | Phase III pretesting aimed to assess comprehensibility and comprehensiveness Structural validity Internal consistency Construct validity-convergent validity Discriminant validity |
EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23 (Winters et al.27) | To carry out phase IV international field-testing of the EORTC BRECON module to finalize scale structure and psychometric testing | International | Standard recall period: the past week | Constructs: HRQoL before and after BR Six subscales: Surgery side-effects, sexuality, satisfaction breast cosmetic, satisfaction nipple cosmetic, satisfaction with surgery, donor site symptoms + single item questions (15 items before mastectomy and BR and 9 items after BR) | Internal consistency Reliability Content validity Structural validity Construct validity (hypothesis testing) Convergent validity Discriminant validity Responsiveness Acceptability Interpretability |
MBROS-S (Alderman et al.28) | To evaluate the effects of reconstructive technique, procedure timing, and age on esthetic and general satisfaction in women undergoing BR | USA and Canada | 1 year after completion of BR | Constructs: HRQoL and satisfaction with breasts Two scales measuring general satisfaction (five items) and esthetic satisfaction (seven items) | Acceptability Internal consistency Reliability Interrater reliability |
MBROS-BI (Wilkins et al.29) | To evaluate and compare psychosocial outcomes for three common options for mastectomy BR | USA and Canada | Previous 4 weeks | Constructs: HRQoL, and body image and sexual functioning HRQoL: social support and concerns about cancer reoccurrence Body image: appearance in clothes and bathing suit and naked, self-consciousness around others, physical attractiveness, satisfaction with body, self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-consciousness during sexual activity (nine items) | Acceptability Internal consistency Reliability Interrater reliability Responsiveness Validity (comparison with other measures) |
Patient-based subjective rating scale for BR appearance (Cohen et al.30) | To develop a new instrument for assessing the appearance of autologous BR and compare patient and physician evaluations | USA | Undergone autologous BR at least 6 months previously | Positioning, defects in the breast, the breasts projection, the breast shape, quality of the inframammary fold, quality of the medial contour and overall appearance of breast, and overall satisfaction with BR | Internal consistency Reliability (intraobserver and interobserver) Test–retest reliability |
Assessment of Breast Reconstruction Patient-Reported Outcome Domains
Relevant patient-reported outcome domains | Core outcome set (COS) item definition | Instruments evaluating patient-reported outcome domain in the RBS COS | |
---|---|---|---|
Name of outcome measurement instrument(s) | Outcome/scales (number of items in scale in brackets) | ||
Donor-site problems/morbidity | Any problems or symptoms arising from the area from which the tissue was taken to reconstruct the breast, including hernias, stiffness, or numbness in the back, tummy, or bottom | BREAST Q: | Abdominal appearance and function (13) Back appearance scale (8) Back and shoulder function scale (11) |
EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23: | Donor-site symptoms (3) Surgical side effects (2) Satisfaction with donor scars (1) | ||
BRECON 31: | Abdominal donor site (10) | ||
Electronic version of BREAST Q: | Satisfaction with abdomen (3) | ||
Self-esteem | Feeling self-confident | BREAST Q: | Single items in psychosocial wellbeing subscale: Confident in a social setting (1) Of equal worth to other women (1) Self-confident? (1) Like other women? (1) |
MBROS-BI: | Mental health (5) | ||
BRECON 31: | Self-image (4) Self-consciousness (3) I feel good about myself (1) | ||
Emotional wellbeing | Feelings of emotional and psychological health after surgery | BREAST Q: | Psychosocial wellbeing (10) |
Electronic version of BREAST Q: | Psychosocial wellbeing (10) | ||
BRECON 31: | Self-image: item “I feel good about myself” (1) | ||
MBROS BI: | Role-emotional (3) Mental health (5) | ||
Normality | Feeling “back to normal self” or “whole” as a result of surgery | BREAST Q: | Satisfaction with breasts: How normal do you feel in your clothes? (1) Psychosocial wellbeing: Normal? (1) |
BRECON 31: | Self-image: item “I feel normal” (1) | ||
MBROS-BI: | Body image: item “I feel whole” (1) | ||
Quality of life | Women’s quality of life following surgery | BREAST Q: | QoL domains: physical, psychosocial, and sexual wellbeing (32) |
Electronic version of BREAST Q: | QoL domains: physical, psychosocial, and sexual wellbeing (32) | ||
BRECON 31: | Recovery (4) | ||
EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23: | HRQoL: before mastectomy and BR (4) HRQoL: relevant after BR (15) | ||
MBROS-BI: | Functional wellbeing (7) Social wellbeing (7) | ||
Physical well-being | Physical activity such as how well women can perform work- and leisure-related tasks after surgery | BREAST Q: | Physical wellbeing: chest and upper body (16) Physical wellbeing: back and shoulder function scale (11) |
Electronic version of BREAST Q: | Physical wellbeing (16) Physical wellbeing (abdomen) (8) | ||
MBROS-BI: | Vitality (4) | ||
BRECON 31: | Abdomen strength (5) Abdomen appearance (5) Arm concerns (4) “I have trouble moving my shoulder” (1) | ||
Women’s cosmetic satisfaction | Women’s overall satisfaction with the appearance of their reconstructed breast(s) after surgery | BREAST Q: | Satisfaction with breasts (15) Satisfaction with implants (2) Satisfaction with nipple reconstruction (1) |
BREAST Q CAT: | Satisfaction with breasts (10) | ||
Electronic version of BREAST Q: | Satisfaction with breast (16) Satisfaction with outcome (7) | ||
BRECON 31: | Satisfaction (4) | ||
EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23: | Satisfaction with breast cosmesis (6) Satisfaction with nipple cosmesis (2) Satisfaction with surgery (3) | ||
MBROS-Satisfaction(S): | General satisfaction with reconstruction (5) Aesthetic satisfaction: breast size/shape/firmness (2) | ||
MBROS-Body image (BI): | Patient perceptions of physical appearance after BR (9) | ||
Subjective rating scale for BR: | The overall appearance of the breast (1) |
Characteristics of Included Studies from Systematic PROMs Review
Author/year | Country of study/setting | Instrument name | Sample size | Age: mean (SD/range) | Population | Type of BR | Indication for surgery |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pusic et al.19 | N. America, Canada | BREAST Q | 1950 (presurgery = 908, postsurgery = 1807) | Presurgery 43 (14/18–84), Postsurgery 47 (12/18–84) | Pre-op and post-op breast surgery patients recruited from five centers in the USA and Canada | Breast surgery | Breast surgery |
Cano et al.20 | North America | BREAST Q | 817 | 49 (12/20–82) | Breast surgery patients (pre- and post-operative > 18 years) | NR | Breast surgery |
Browne et al.21 | UK | BREAST Q (2 novel scales: back appearance scale and back and shoulder function scale) | 1096 | Median age = 52 (range 18–50) | Breast cancer patients having latissimus dorsi BR after mastectomy | Latissimus dorsi BR | Breast cancer |
Young-Afat et al.31 | North America | BREAST Q computerized adaptive testing (CAT) | 5000 | NR (women were 22 years and older) | Women who had undergone implant-based BR randomly selected from 17,000 who had completed the satisfaction-with-breast scale | Implant based BR | Breast cancer |
Fuzesi et al.32 | North America | Electronic version of BREAST Q | 1956 (completed BR module) | 55 (9.3) | Women with history of BCa completing online survey | Breast surgery | |
Temple et al.22 | Canada | BRECON-31 | 20 (women participating in focus groups) | 54 (range 36–69) | Women who had previously undergone BR | 16 autologous and 11 alloplastic BR (13 were unilateral & 11 bilateral) | Breast surgery |
Temple-Oberle et al.23 | Canada | BRECON-31 | 128 | 52.7 | Women who had previously undergone BR | Implant-based BR Abdominal flap BR Combination of an autologous and alloplastic BR | Diagnosed with invasive mammary carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ, BRCA-associated or another breast disease |
Temple-Oberle et al.24 | Canada | BRECON-31 | 50 | 49.1 (7.6) | Consecutive women presenting for final F/up who had completed BR | Bilateral BR Unilateral BR Implant-based BR Abdominal flap BR Nipple/areola BR | NR |
Thomson et al.25 | UK, Italy, Sweden | EORTC QLQ-BRECON | 31 (semistructured interviews) | 50 (range 33–66) | LD, TRAM/DIEP, and implant-based BR techniques after mastectomy for BCa | LD, TRAM/DIEAP, and implant-based BR techniques | For women undergoing mastectomy for invasive BCa, ductal carcinoma in situ, or prophylactic surgery |
Winters et al.26 | UK, Austria, Belgium, Italy, and Sweden | EORTC QLQ-(BRR) BRECON 26 | 150 (retrospective group post BR) | NR | 1–5 years after immediate or delayed BR | Mastectomy BR implant only, pedicle LD with implant, autologous LD, and microvascular free abdominal flaps such as TRAM and DIEP | Diagnosed with BCa or ductal carcinoma in situ requiring mastectomy and BR |
Winters et al.27 | 28 international centers | EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23 | 438 (234 in prospective cohort and 204 in cross-sectional cohort). Implants (176), donor-site flaps (166) | 50.7 (27–78) | Patients with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy and BR | Mastectomy and BR (implant and autologous BR) | Breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ |
Alderman et al. 2000 | USA and Canada | MBROS-S | 212 | Implant patients = 48.5 Pedicle TRAM flap = 49.4 Free TRAM flap = 46.4 | Mastectomy reconstruction patients: Women who had undergone first time immediate or delayed BR surgery | Expander/implant Pedicle TRAM flap Free TRAM flap | Women who had undergone first time immediate or delayed BR surgery |
Wilkins et al.29 | USA and Canada | MBROS-BI | 273 | Implant patients = 48.5 Pedicle TRAM flap = 49.4 Free TRAM flap = 46.4 | Mastectomy reconstruction patients: Women who had undergone first time immediate or delayed BR surgery | Tissue expander/implant Pedicle TRAM flap Free TRAM flap | Patients undergoing immediate or delayed postmastectomy BR |
Cohen et al.30 | USA | Patient-based subjective rating scale for BR appearance | 36 | NR | Patients photographs (frontal and lateral views) taken as part of their routine post-op visits after BR | Autologous BR (transverse rectus musculocutaneous flap BR) | NR |
PROM Instruments Selection for Full COSMIN Evaluation
Overall Rating and Grading of Quality of Evidence per Measurement Property for Each PROM
COSMIN Measurement property | BREAST Q | BRECON 31 | EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Summary of pooled results | Overall rating | Quality of evidence | Summary of pooled results | Overall rating | Quality of evidence | Summary of pooled results | Overall rating | Quality of evidence | |
Content validity | Content validity: (+) Relevance: Comprehensiveness: Comprehensibility: | Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) | High High High High | Content validity: (+) Relevance: Comprehensiveness: Comprehensibility: | Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) | High High High High | Content validity: (+) Relevance: Comprehensiveness: Comprehensibility: | Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) Sufficient (+) | High High High High |
Structural validity | Pusic 2009 (+) Cano 2012 (+) Fit to Rasch model was good. | Sufficient (+) | High | Used EFA to assess structural validity | Insufficient (−) | Low | Winters 2014 (?) Winters 2018 (?) | Indeterminate (?) | High |
Internal consistency | Pusic 2009 (+) Cronbach’s α: 0.81–0.96 Cano 2012 (+) Cronbach’s α: > 0.80 | Sufficient (+) | High | Temple-Oberle 2012 (?), Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.67 to 0.91. Temple-Oberle 2013 (?), Cronbach’s α range from 0.34 to 0.92. | Indeterminate (?) | High | Winters 2014 (+) Winters 2018 (+) Cronbach’s α > 0.7 | Sufficient (+) | High |
Cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance | No information available | N/A | N/A | No information available | N/A | N/A | No information available | N/A | N/A |
Reliability | Pusic 2009 (+) ICC > 0.70 Cano 2012 (+) ICC = > 0.80 | Sufficient (+) | High | Temple-Oberle 2012 (−), ICC > 0.74 Temple-Oberle 2013 (NA) | Insufficient (−) | Very low | Winters 2014 (NA) Winters 2018 (+) Test–retest reliability was good with ICCs for multi item scales ranging from 0.809 to 0.916 and single items from 0.728 to 0.905 | Sufficient (+) | Moderate |
Measurement error | No test for measurement error | N/A | N/A | No test for measurement error | N/A | N/A | No test for measurement error | N/A | N/A |
Criterion validity | No information available | N/A | N/A | Temple-Oberle 2012 Excellent correlation with gold standard (Breast-Q) for satisfaction subscales (PCC = 0.76) | Sufficient (+) | High | No information available | N/A | N/A |
Hypothesis testing (for construct validity) | The result was in accordance with the hypothesis | Sufficient (+) | High | The result was in accordance with the hypothesis | Sufficient (+) | Moderate | The result was in accordance with the hypothesis | Sufficient (+) | High |
Responsiveness | No information available | N/A | N/A | No information available | N/A | N/A | The result was in accordance with the hypothesis | Sufficient (+) | High |
Measurement propertya | BREAST Q | BRECON 31 | EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Overall rating | Quality of evidence | Overall rating | Quality of evidence | Overall rating | Quality of evidence | |
+/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | |
Content validity | + | High | + | High | + | High |
Relevance | + | High | + | High | + | High |
Comprehensiveness | + | High | + | High | + | High |
Comprehensibility | + | High | + | High | + | High |
Structural validity | + | High | − | Low | ? | High |
Internal consistency | + | High | ? | High | + | High |
Reliability | + | High | − | Very low | + | Moderate |
Criterion validity | NA | NA | + | High | NA | NA |
Hypothesis testing for construct validity | + | High | + | Moderate | + | High |
Responsiveness | NA | NA | NA | NA | + | High |
Content Validity
Structural Validity
Internal Consistency
Reliability
Criterion Validity
Hypothesis Testing for Construct Validity
Responsiveness
Information on Feasibility of PROMs
Feasibility aspects | BREAST Q | BRECON 31 | EORTC QLQ-BRECON 23 |
---|---|---|---|
Patient comprehensibility | Patients found questionnaire to be acceptable, comprehensive, and clear | Not stated | Found to be acceptable for the majority of women and was quick and easy to complete |
Domains/subscales and number of items (core outcomes are highlighted in bold) | Six subscales Satisfaction with breasts (15 items) Satisfaction with overall outcome (7 items) Satisfaction with information/care (15 items) Psychosocial wellbeing (10 items) Sexual wellbeing (6 items) Physical wellbeing (chest and upper body) (11 items) Total 69 items | Eight Subscales Self-image (4 items) Arm concerns (4 items) Intimacy (5 items) Satisfaction with outcome (4 items) Recovery (4 items) Self-consciousness (3 items) Expectations (4 items) Appearance (3 items) Total 31 items A nipple (4 items) and abdominal subscale are also used where applicable (10 items) giving maximum number of 45 items | Six subscales and three stand-alone items Surgery side effects (2 items) Sexuality (4 items) Satisfaction breast cosmetic (6 items) Satisfaction nipple cosmetic (2 items) Satisfaction with surgery (3 items) Donor site symptoms (3 items) Satisfaction with donor-site scar (single item) Loss of nipple (single item) Preserve/reconstruct nipple (single item) Total 23 items NB: This questionnaire is designed to be used alongside two other questionnaires: EORTC QLQ-30 (cancer) and QLQ-BR23 (breast cancer) Total 79 items |
Completion time | Reconstruction module only: 10–15 min | 5 min | 20–30 min |
Patient’s required mental and physical ability level | All content was targeted to sixth-grade reading level | The final items were refined for sixth-grade reading level according to Flesch-Kincaid, language and spelling according to Merriam-Webster online dictionary | |
Ease of standardization | The BREAST Q scales are not considered valid for patient groups that were not represented in the development process | ||
Ease of score calculation | Acceptable | Easy scoring | Easy scoring |
Copyright | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre and Uni of British Columbia 2007 | 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc | EORTC |
Cost of an instrument | No fee for use by academics | Not stated | No fee for use by academics |
Required equipment | None | None | None |
Regulatory agency’s requirement for approval | Local institutional ethics review board approval was obtained for 3 centers in the USA and Canada | Approved by the institutional review board of the University of Western Ontario | Ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Committee Northampton |
No. of studies citing/using instrument questionnairea | 478 | 8 | 5 |
Other considerations | Validated in breast reconstruction patients | Validated in breast reconstruction patients | Only validated in patients undergoing breast reconstruction for cancer (not validated in risk-reducing population) |