Department of Medicine - Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Center for Thrombosis and Hemostasis (CTH), University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany; Clinic of Angiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thromb Res. 2020 Jun;190:45-51. doi: 10.1016/j.thromres.2020.03.020. Epub 2020 Mar 30.
We recently proposed a scale for assessment of patient-relevant functional limitations following an episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Further development of this post-VTE functional status (PVFS) scale is still needed.
Guided by the input of VTE experts and patients, we refined the PVFS scale and its accompanying manual, and attempted to acquire broad consensus on its use.
A Delphi analysis was performed involving 53 international VTE experts with diverse scientific and clinical backgrounds. In this process, the number of scale grades of the originally proposed PVFS scale was reduced and descriptions of the grades were improved. After these changes, a consensus was reached on the number/definitions of the grades, and method/timing of the scale assessment. The relevance and potential impact of the scale was confirmed in three focus groups totaling 18 VTE patients, who suggested additional changes to the manual, but not to the scale itself. Using the improved manual, the κ-statistics between PVFS scale self-reporting and its assessment via the structured interview was 0.75 (95%CI 0.58-1.0), and 1.0 (95%CI 0.83-1.0) between independent raters of the recorded interview of 16 focus groups members.
We improved the PVFS scale and demonstrated broad consensus on its relevance, optimal grades, and methods of assessing among international VTE experts and patients. The interobserver agreement of scale grade assignment was shown to be good-to-excellent. The PVFS scale may become an important outcome measure of functional impairment for quality of patient care and in future VTE trials.
我们最近提出了一种评估静脉血栓栓塞症(VTE)后与患者相关的功能障碍的量表。仍需要进一步开发这种 VTE 后功能状态(PVFS)量表。
在 VTE 专家和患者的意见指导下,我们对 PVFS 量表及其配套手册进行了修订,并试图就其使用达成广泛共识。
我们对 53 名具有不同科学和临床背景的国际 VTE 专家进行了德尔菲分析。在此过程中,我们减少了最初提出的 PVFS 量表的等级数量,并改进了各等级的描述。经过这些修改,我们就等级的数量/定义、量表评估的方法/时间达成了共识。三个共有 18 名 VTE 患者参加的焦点小组确认了该量表的相关性和潜在影响,他们建议对手册进行进一步修改,但不改变量表本身。使用改进后的手册,PVFS 量表自我报告与通过结构化访谈进行评估之间的κ统计值为 0.75(95%CI 0.58-1.0),而在对 16 个焦点小组 16 名成员的访谈记录进行独立评估时,κ统计值为 1.0(95%CI 0.83-1.0)。
我们改进了 PVFS 量表,并在国际 VTE 专家和患者中就其相关性、最佳等级和评估方法达成了广泛共识。量表等级分配的观察者间一致性被证明是良好到优秀。PVFS 量表可能成为评估患者护理质量和未来 VTE 试验中功能障碍的重要结果衡量标准。