Comparing Methods to Measure Change in Symptoms After Surgery
Author Information
Author(s): Bitzer Eva M, Petrucci Marco, Lorenz Christoph, Hussein Rugzan, Dörning Hans, Trojan Alf, Nickel Stefan
Primary Institution: ISEG Institute for Social medicine, Epidemiology, and Research in Health System
Hypothesis
Is the retrospective approach to measuring change in symptoms after surgery valid compared to the conventional method?
Conclusion
The retrospective method of measuring change was associated with a larger improvement in symptoms than the conventional method.
Supporting Evidence
- Model B showed a stronger correlation with the conventional method than Model A.
- Retrospective assessments resulted in a more optimistic evaluation of improvement.
- Overestimation of symptom change was higher in Model A than in Model B.
- Correlation with the conventional method was higher at the first postoperative point than at the second.
Takeaway
This study looked at how well different ways of asking patients about their symptoms after surgery work. It found that asking patients to remember their symptoms made them feel like they improved more than when doctors measured it directly.
Methodology
A longitudinal observational study with 185 hernia patients and 130 laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients, assessing changes in symptoms at three time points.
Potential Biases
Recall bias may lead to over- or underestimation of treatment effectiveness.
Limitations
The sample size was relatively small and the distribution of genders between the two patient groups was uneven.
Participant Demographics
Hernia patients were mainly men (92.4%), mean age 58.6 years; gall bladder patients were mainly women, mean age 53.6 years.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website