Validación psicométrica de la versión en castellano del cuestionario USS-PROM para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de uretra anterior

Puche-Sanz, Ignacio; Martín-Way, David Alejandro; Flores-Martín, José Francisco; Expósito-Ruíz, Manuela; Vicente-Prados, Javier; Nogueras-Ocaña, Mercedes; Tinaut-Ranera, Javier; Cózar-Olmo, J.M.

doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2016.01.002

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found five recent studies validating translation of the USS-PROM from English into various languages. [31][32][33][34][35] The improvements found in voiding score were similar to the group of men allocated urethroplasty in the OPEN trial. The rate of recurrence following urethrotomy and the improvement in measured flow rate found in the urethrotomy group were also similar to the findings of recent published cohorts.…”

Section: Generalisabilitymentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Participant-reported outcomes for the OPEN trial were collected through a specific trial questionnaire completed by participants. The questionnaire, urethral stricture surgerypatient-reported outcome measure (USS-PROM), has been validated in this patient group in English, 30 German, 31 Turkish, 32 Russian, 33 Spanish 34 and Portuguese. 35 It comprised six questions on voiding symptoms and their impact on daily activities, self-rating of urine flow strength (using a pictorial guide) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), questionnaire measuring health status.…”

Section: Outcome Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT

Pickard

Goulão

Carnell

et al. 2020

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Men who suffer recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture have to decide between endoscopic urethrotomy and open urethroplasty to manage their urinary symptoms. Evidence of relative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is lacking. Objectives To assess benefit, harms and cost-effectiveness of open urethroplasty compared with endoscopic urethrotomy as treatment for recurrent urethral stricture in men. Design Parallel-group, open-label, patient-randomised trial of allocated intervention with 6-monthly follow-ups over 24 months. Target sample size was 210 participants providing outcome data. Participants, clinicians and local research staff could not be blinded to allocation. Central trial staff were blinded when needed. Setting UK NHS with recruitment from 38 hospital sites. Participants A total of 222 men requiring operative treatment for recurrence of bulbar urethral stricture who had received at least one previous intervention for stricture. Interventions A centralised randomisation system using random blocks allocated participants 1 : 1 to open urethroplasty (experimental group) or endoscopic urethrotomy (control group). Main outcome measures The primary clinical outcome was control of urinary symptoms. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over 24 months. The main secondary outcome was the need for reintervention for stricture recurrence. Results The mean difference in the area under the curve of repeated measurement of voiding symptoms scored from 0 (no symptoms) to 24 (severe symptoms) between the two groups was –0.36 [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.78 to 1.02; p = 0.6]. Mean voiding symptom scores improved between baseline and 24 months after randomisation from 13.4 [standard deviation (SD) 4.5] to 6 (SD 5.5) for urethroplasty group and from 13.2 (SD 4.7) to 6.4 (SD 5.3) for urethrotomy. Reintervention was less frequent and occurred earlier in the urethroplasty group (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.89; p = 0.02). There were two postoperative complications requiring reinterventions in the group that received urethroplasty and five, including one death from pulmonary embolism, in the group that received urethrotomy. Over 24 months, urethroplasty cost on average more than urethrotomy (cost difference £2148, 95% CI £689 to £3606) and resulted in a similar number of QALYs (QALY difference –0.01, 95% CI –0.17 to 0.14). Therefore, based on current evidence, urethrotomy is considered to be cost-effective. Limitations We were able to include only 69 (63%) of the 109 men allocated to urethroplasty and 90 (80%) of the 113 men allocated to urethrotomy in the primary complete-case intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions The similar magnitude of symptom improvement seen for the two procedures over 24 months of follow-up shows that both provide effective symptom control. The lower likelihood of further intervention favours urethroplasty, but this had a higher cost over the 24 months of follow-up and was unlikely to be considered cost-effective. Future work Formulate methods to incorporate short-term disutility data into cost-effectiveness analysis. Survey pathways of care for men with urethral stricture, including the use of enhanced recovery after urethroplasty. Establish a pragmatic follow-up schedule to allow national audit of outcomes following urethral surgery with linkage to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98009168. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Generalisabilitymentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Outcome Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT

Pickard

Goulão

Carnell

et al. 2020

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most widely used example is the I-PSS which is adopted in standard practice to inform clinicians of the patient impact of prostatic symptoms before, during and following treatment (medical or surgical) (6). A PROM for urethral stricture surgery has also been successfully validated and is used internationally in several centres (20)(21)(22). More recently, exciting progress in PROMs has been made in the area of kidney stones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Disease-Specific Ureteral Calculus Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Instrument

Tran

Sut

Collie

et al. 2018

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Turkish validation of the urethral stricture surgery specific patient‐reported outcome measure (USS‐PROM) with supplemental assessment of erectile function and morbidity due to oral graft harvesting

Önol

Bindayı

Tahra

et al. 2017

Neurourology and Urodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Validación psicométrica de la versión en castellano del cuestionario USS-PROM para pacientes sometidos a cirugía de uretra anterior

Cited by 9 publications

References 16 publications

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT

Open urethroplasty versus endoscopic urethrotomy for recurrent urethral stricture in men: the OPEN RCT

Development of a Disease-Specific Ureteral Calculus Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Instrument

Turkish validation of the urethral stricture surgery specific patient‐reported outcome measure (USS‐PROM) with supplemental assessment of erectile function and morbidity due to oral graft harvesting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About