Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Ear Conditions: The EAR-Q

Klassen, Anne F.; Longmire, Natasha M.; Bulstrode, Neil; Fisher, David M.; Kasrai, Leila; O’Hara, Justine; Panchapakesan, Vivek; Pusic, Andrea L.; Stewart, Kenneth J.; Tsangaris, Elena; Ziolkowski, Natalia; Riff, Karen W. Y. Wong

doi:10.1097/gox.0000000000001842

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, health-related quality of life outcomes illustrated benefit of both ACC and PPE reconstructions, though scores were moderate for ACC reconstructions and limited by the lack of preoperative measurements. Recently, the EAR-Q, an ear-specific HRQoL and satisfaction questionnaire developed by the authors of the CLEFT-Q and FACE-Q, has been released after field-testing 69 . The ISAR congress in 2017 also agreed upon the international use of this patientreported outcome measure (PROM).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

Ronde

Esposito

Lin

et al. 2021

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: a systematic review E.M. Ronde 1,*

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

Ronde

Esposito

Lin

et al. 2021

Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a new patient-reported outcome measure assessment tool that is currently being field-tested internationally called the EAR-Q. 16 The outcome measures listed within EAR-Q were included as a Tier 1 article in our study. The EAR-Q consists of an 18-item ear appearance scale and a 12-item adverse effects scale.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Auricular Surgery: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The utilization of an assessment instrument that successfully analyzes validated outcome measures for auricular surgery is important for advancing evidence-based medicine. OBJECTIVE To systematically review postsurgical scar assessment instruments and outcome measures after auricular surgery to assess if any individual or combination of 2 assessment instruments encompass all relevant, validated auricular outcome measures. METHODS Two systematic reviews were conducted using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid databases: one for postauricular surgical outcome measures and another for postsurgical scar assessment instruments. Auricular outcome measure articles were selected for inclusion if they included at least one auricular-specific validated outcome measure, and assessment tool articles were included if they referenced one or more specific tool(s) specifically designed to assess postsurgical scars. Assessment tools were evaluated based on which outcome measures each covered. RESULTS There was no single postsurgical scar assessment instrument or combination of 2 instruments that covered all outcome measures within the 5 different categories (psychosocial well-being, functional, objective appearance, subjective appearance, and clinical-related outcomes) after auricular surgery. None of the instruments measured functional outcomes, such as the ability to wear glasses and hearing outcomes. CONCLUSION There is currently no existing postsurgical scar assessment instrument that covers all outcome measures after auricular surgery.

show abstract

“…The LIMB-Q is being developed in a multistage approach, consistent with the other instruments in the Q-portfolio of PRO instruments (www.qportfolio.org). [32][33][34][35][36] In Phase I, we developed a preliminary instrument by identifying themes important to a heterogeneous cohort of lower extremity trauma patients after amputation, reconstruction, or amputation after a failed attempt at reconstruction. In Phase II, presented here, cognitive interviews enabled validation of content across treatment modality and verification of ease of scale readability and comprehension for lower extremity trauma patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Validity of the LIMB-Q: A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Lower Extremity Trauma Patients

Mundy

Klassen

Sergesketter

et al. 2020

J Reconstr Microsurg

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract Background Limb-threatening lower extremity traumatic injuries can be devastating events with a multifaceted impact on patients. Therefore, evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in addition to traditional surgical outcomes is important. However, currently available instruments are limited as they were not developed specific to lower extremity trauma patients and lack content validity. The LIMB-Q is being developed as a novel PRO instrument to meet this need, with the goal to measure all relevant concepts and issues impacting amputation and limb-salvage patients after limb-threatening lower extremity trauma. Methods This is a qualitative interview-based study evaluating content validity for the LIMB-Q. Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent amputation, reconstruction, or amputation after failed reconstruction were recruited using purposeful sampling to maximize variability of participant experiences. Expert opinion was solicited from a variety of clinical providers and qualitative researchers internationally. Preliminary items and scales were modified, added, or removed based on participant and expert feedback after each round of participant interviews and expert opinion. Results Twelve patients and 43 experts provided feedback in a total of three rounds, with changes to the preliminary instrument made between each round. One scale was dropped after round one, one scale was added after round two, and only minor changes were needed after round three. Modifications, additions and removal of items, instructions, and response options were made after each round using feedback gathered. Conclusion The LIMB-Q was refined and modified to reflect feedback from patients and experts in the field. Content validity for the LIMB-Q was established. Following a large-scale field test, the LIMB-Q will be ready for use in research and clinical care.

show abstract

Development of a New Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Ear Conditions: The EAR-Q

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

Long-term aesthetics, patient-reported outcomes, and auricular sensitivity after microtia reconstruction: A systematic review

Validated Outcome Measures and Postsurgical Scar Assessment Instruments in Auricular Surgery: A Systematic Review

Content Validity of the LIMB-Q: A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Lower Extremity Trauma Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About