Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34042993›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2021

Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Assess Outpatient Postpartum Recovery: A Systematic Review.

Pervez Sultan, Nadir Sharawi, Lindsay Blake, Kazuo Ando, Ellile Sultan, Nima Aghaeepour, Brendan Carvalho, Nishant Sadana

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Development and Validation of a Turkish Version of Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Pervez SultanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nadir SharawiDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Lindsay BlakeClinical Services,University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.
Kazuo AndoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Ellile SultanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nima AghaeepourDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Brendan CarvalhoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Nishant SadanaUniversity of Illinois, Chicago.
Stanford University · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Outpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery. Objective: To evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Evidence Review: An initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended). Findings: In total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations). Conclusions and Relevance: This review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultConvalescenceFemaleHumansOutpatientsPostpartum PeriodPregnancyQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34042993
PMCPMC8160591
OpenAlexW3164123059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.