Assessment of guidelines for bariatric and metabolic surgery: a systematic review and evaluation using appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II).

BACKGROUND: In recent years, multiple guidelines on bariatric and metabolic surgery were published, however, their quality remains unknown, leaving providers with uncertainty when using them to make perioperative decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of existing guidelines for perioperative bariatric surgery care. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE were conducted from January 2010 to October 2022 for bariatric clinical practice guidelines. Guideline evaluation was carried out using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) framework. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 1483 citations, of which, 26 were included in final analysis. The overall median domain scores for guidelines were: (1) scope and purpose: 87.5% (IQR: 57-94%), (2) stakeholder involvement: 49% (IQR: 40-64%), (3) rigor of development: 42.5% (IQR: 22-68%), (4) clarity of presentation: 85% (IQR: 81-90%), (5) applicability: 6% (IQR: 3-16%), (6) editorial independence: 50% (IQR: 48-67%), (7) overall impressions: 48% (IQR: 33-67%). Only six guidelines achieved an overall score >70%. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery guidelines effectively outlined their aim and presented recommendations. However, many did not adequately seek patient input, state search criteria, use evidence rating tools, and consider resource implications. Future guidelines should reference the AGREE II framework in study design.

Drains in Breast Reduction: How Good is the Recommendation Not to Use Them?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommended not to use drains in breast reduction. This CPG was based on 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The objective of this review was to double-check the methodological quality of the three RCTs. These RCTs were critically appraised using a) the Users' guide to RCT assessment for methodological quality, b) the CONSORT guideline for reporting quality, and c) the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for risk of bias. Weaknesses were identified in all assessments for the three RCTs. Items with the poorest adherence in the User's guide to RCT included: "Were patients stratified?", "Was follow-up complete?", and "Were all clinically important outcomes considered?". The overall adherence to the CONSORT Reporting Checklist across all studies was moderate with 40.0%, 62.1% and 48.3% adherence. All 3 RCTs had a similar low to moderate risk of bias, with no areas with a high risk of bias. None of the studies took into consideration a single critical outcome (such as major hematoma) and the outcome's minimally important difference as the basis for the sample size and power calculation of the study. All three RCTs additionally lacked clear reporting of treatment effect sizes or precision of estimates. Our re-examination of the evidence questions the recommendation of the CPG. We believe that the recommendation should have been "we remain uncertain whether drains in breast reduction have a salutary effect". As such, we recommend that a methodologically robust RCTs be conducted to answer this question.

Estimating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Visual Analogue Scale for Carpometacarpal Thumb Joint Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest perceived treatment effect that patients deem clinically significant. There is currently no agreement on an appropriate MCID for the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) in the context of thumb osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We approximated MCIDs using a distribution-based approach that pooled standard deviations (SDs) associated with baseline mean values of the pain VAS (0-100 mm). We extracted the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in a systematic review of adults with long-term OA of the thumb. We excluded RCTs that did not report baseline SD values. The MCIDs were derived at 0.4 and 0.5 SDs of the pooled SD and compared with previously published MCIDs for the pain VAS in OA. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were pooled from 7 RCTs for the analysis. The mean baseline VAS pain score was 5.6 cm. We derived an MCID of 0.72 cm at 0.4 SDs and 0.91 cm at 0.5 SDs using baseline SDs. We found that MCIDs derived from a distribution-based approach approximated published MCIDs for the VAS for pain for OA in the knee and hip. CONCLUSION: The authors propose that a change of 0.7 to 0.9 cm on the VAS is clinically meaningful in the context of long-term OA of the thumb.

A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research in Hand Surgery.

No formal review of qualitative research in hand surgery has been previously performed. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of hand surgery qualitative research with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), a 21-item checklist. The secondary objectives were to describe qualitative research in hand surgery by domain, determine differences in reporting quality based on use of a reporting guideline, publication of SRQR and journal of publication, and to identify important outcomes in hand surgery conditions. Fifty-five studies were included from MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Emcare. The median SRQR score was 16. The lowest reported sections were context, data collection methods, and data analysis. Qualitative research was found in multiple domains of hand surgery. There was a significant difference between papers that used a reporting guideline and studies published after the publication of the SRQR. Clinical/medical/basic science journals had the highest median SRQR score. Outcomes identified were pain for carpal tunnel syndrome and pain, function, unintentional harm, recurrence, and recovery time for Dupuytren disease. To further improve reporting quality in hand surgery qualitative research, we recommend that investigators ensure they provide rationale for their methodology and become familiar with the SRQR guidelines.

A scoping review of surgical care for people experiencing homelessness: prevalence, access, and disparities.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have highlighted the inequitable access to medical and psychiatric care that people experiencing homelessness (PEH) face, yet the surgical needs of this population are not well understood. We sought to assess evidence describing surgical care for PEH and to perform a thematic analysis of the results. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched using the terms "surgery" AND "homelessness." Grey literature was also searched. We used a stepwise scoping review methodology, followed by thematic analysis using an inductive approach. RESULTS: We included 104 articles in our review. Studies were included from 5 continents; 63% originated in the United States. All surgical specialties were represented with varying surgical conditions and procedures for each. Orthopedic surgery (21%) was the most frequently reported specialty. Themes identified included characteristics of PEH receiving surgical care, homeless-to-housed participants, interaction with the health care system, educational initiatives, barriers and challenges, and interventions and future strategies. CONCLUSION: We identified significant variation and gaps, representing opportunities for further research and interventions. Further addressing the barriers and challenges that PEH face when accessing surgical care can better address the needs of this population.

The appropriateness and quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in plastic surgery randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) quantify patient perspectives to measure outcomes that matter to patients. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of appropriateness and quality of PROM selection in plastic surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 2000, to June 5, 2022, to identify published RCTs within the plastic surgery literature. Included studies were categorized as follows: 1) a clearly defined patient-reported primary outcome; 2) a primary outcome could be inferred; or 3) no clear or implied primary outcome. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database was consulted to assess the available literature on the PROMs. RESULTS: There were 130 plastic surgery RCTs identified. Of the 43 studies with a clear or inferred primary outcome, the percentage of studies that commented with supporting references on the PROM's appropriateness for the population, disease/condition, and outcome were 20.9% (n = 9/43), 18.6% (n = 8/43), and 27.9% (n = 12/43), respectively. The percentage of studies that commented on the PROM's validity, reliability, and responsiveness with supporting references were 34.9% (n = 15/43), 14.0% (n = 6/43), and 11.7% (n = 5/43), respectively. There were 21 unique PROMs identified; 28.6% (n = 6/21) were available in the COSMIN database. CONCLUSION: The majority of plastic surgery RCTs assessing patient-reported primary outcomes lack transparency surrounding PROM selection and quality. We recommend investigators conducting plastic surgery clinical research report explicitly why they used a particular PROM and support its appropriateness and psychometric properties with supporting references. Finally, they should familiarize themselves with the COSMIN initiative.

Ensuring patient centeredness in upper extremity lymphedema research: Identifying patient-prioritized agenda and preferences.

PURPOSE: To elicit a patient-prioritized agenda and preferences for upper extremity lymphedema (LE) research. METHODS: Focus group sessions (FGs) were conducted with English-speaking, adult women (18 years and older) with breast cancer-related LE (BCRL) seeking conservative or surgical care at two tertiary cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. An interview guide was used; women were asked to describe health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes that mattered the most to them, followed by their preferences for research study design and for providing patient-reported outcomes measure (PROM) data. Inductive content analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. RESULTS: A total of 16 women participated in 4 FG sessions (55 ± 9.5 years) and described the impact of LE on their appearance, physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being. Women emphasized that psychosocial well-being was often not discussed in clinical care and that they were poorly informed of LE risk and care options. Most women said that they would not be willing to be randomized to surgical versus conservative management of LE. They also expressed a preference to complete PROM data electronically. All women emphasized the value of having an open text option alongside PROMs to expand on their concerns. CONCLUSION: Patient centeredness is key to generating meaningful data and ensuring ongoing engagement in clinical research. In LE, comprehensive PROMs that measure a range of HRQL concerns, especially psychosocial well-being, should be considered. Women with BCRL are reluctant to be randomized to conservative care when a surgical option is available, resulting in implications for planning trial sample size and recruitment.