A state-of-the-art review of quality-of-life assessment in venous disease

Objective: Chronic venous disease is a common condition and has a significant impact on patients' health status. Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess health status are needed to measure health status. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the current validation evidence for disease-specific PROMs for chronic venous disease and provides a framework for their use in the clinical setting.

Methods: A literature search in OVID Embase and Medline was conducted to identify relevant English-language studies of chronic venous disease that used disease-specific PROMs between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2022. Abstracts and titles from identified studies were screened by four investigators, and full-text articles were subsequently screened for eligibility. Data on validation of disease-specific PROMs was abstracted from each included article. Classical test theory was used as a framework to examine a priori defined validation criteria for content validity, reliability (construct validity, internal reliability, and test-retest reliability), responsiveness, and expansion of the validation evidence base (use in randomized controlled trials and comparative effectiveness research, cultural or linguistic translations, predictive validity, or establishing the minimal clinically important difference threshold, defined as smallest amount an outcome or measure is perceived as a meaningful change to patients). The PROMs were categorized into three groups based on the manifestations of disease of the population for which they were developed. The overall validity of each PROM was assessed across three stages of validation including content validity (phase 1); construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness (phase 2); and expansion of the validation evidence base (phase 3).

Results: Of 2338 unique studies screened, 112 studies (4.8%) met inclusion criteria. The eight disease-specific PROMs identified were categorized into three groups: (1) overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6); (2) C1 to C4 disease; and (3) C5 to C6 disease. Assessed by group, the Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C1 to C4 disease, and the Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire met criteria for validation at all three phases for patients with C5 to C6 disease. There were no PROMs that met all criteria for validation for use in overall chronic venous disease (C1 to C6).

Conclusions: Of the eight PROMs assessed in this review, only two met prespecified criteria at each phase for validation. The Chronic Venous Insufficiency Questionnaire and Charing Cross Venous Ulcer Questionnaire should be considered for use in patients with chronic venous disease without venous ulcers and with venous ulcers, respectively.