Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38128828›Full record

ReviewJournal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders2024

A state-of-the-art review of quality-of-life assessment in venous disease.

Jacob Cleman, Kevin Xia, Moosa Haider, Roozbeh Nikooie, Lindsey Scierka, Gaëlle Romain, Robert R Attaran, Alyssa Grimshaw, Carlos Mena-Hurtado, Kim G Smolderen

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Is chronic venous disease a marker of systemic cardiovascular risk? A systematic review.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jacob ClemanVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Kevin XiaFrank H. Netter MD School of Medicine, Quinnipiac University, North Haven, CT.
Moosa HaiderVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Roozbeh NikooieDivision of Cardiology, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Worcester, MA.
Lindsey ScierkaVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Gaëlle RomainVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Robert R AttaranYale University, Department of Cardiology, New Haven, CT.
Alyssa GrimshawDepartment of Library and Information Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Carlos Mena-HurtadoVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Kim G SmolderenVascular Medicine Outcomes Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT; Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: kim.smolderen@yale.edu.
Yale University · USQuinnipiac University · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

Training in Implementation Science Research and MethodsT32HL155000 · NHLBI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SPIEGELMAN, DONNA L, VELAZQUEZ, ERIC J · 2021 to 2025
$2.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL155000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveChronic venous disease is a common condition and has a significant impact on patients' health status. Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess health status are needed to measure health status. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the current validation evidence for disease-specific PROMs for chronic venous disease and provides a framework for their use in the clinical setting.

methodsA literature search in OVID Embase and Medline was conducted to identify relevant English-language studies of chronic venous disease that used disease-specific PROMs between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2022. Abstracts and titles from identified studies were screened by four investigators, and full-text articles were subsequently screened for eligibility. Data on validation of disease-specific PROMs was abstracted from each included article. Classical test theory was used as a framework to examine a priori defined validation criteria for content validity, reliability (construct validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability), responsiveness, and expansion of the validation evidence base (use in randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research, cultural or linguistic translations, predictive validity, or establishing the minimal clinically important difference threshold, defined as smallest amount an outcome or measure is perceived as a meaningful change to patients). The PROMs were categorized into three groups based on the manifestations of disease of the population for which they were developed. The overall validity of each PROM was assessed across three stages of validation including content validity (phase 1); construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness (phase 2); and expansion of the validation evidence base (phase 3).

resultsOf 2338 unique studies screened, 112 studies (4.8%) met inclusion criteria. The eight disease-specific PROMs identified were categorized into three groups: (1) overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6); (2) C1 to C4 disease; and (3) C5 to C6 disease. Assessed by group, the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C1 to C4 disease, and the Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C5 to C6 disease. There were no PROMs that met all criteria for validation for use in overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6).

conclusionsOf the eight PROMs assessed in this review, only two met prespecified criteria at each phase for validation. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire and Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire should be considered for use in patients with chronic venous disease without venous ulcers and with venous ulcers, respectively.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeChronic DiseaseHealth StatusHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsVascular DiseasesQuality of lifeVaricose veinsVenous insufficiencyVenous ulcer

Identifiers

PMID38128828
PMCPMC11523418
OpenAlexW4389937900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.