Advertisement

Evaluating agreement between clinic- and patient-reported outcomes for weight and co-morbidities at 1 year after bariatric surgery

Published:October 10, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soard.2022.10.001

      Highlights

      • One-year postoperative patient & clinic reported weights show high agreement.
      • Patient and clinic reported diabetes & hypertension status show high agreement.
      • Patient report options can increase postoperative long-term follow-up rates.
      • Response rates differ by demographics & response method, limiting generalizability

      Abstract

      Background

      Development of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to include traditionally clinic-reported data has the potential to decrease the data-collection burden for patients and clinicians and increase follow-up rates. However, replacing clinic report by patient report requires that the data reasonably agree.

      Objective

      To assess agreement between PROs and clinical registry data at 1 year after bariatric surgery.

      Setting

      Not-for-profit organization, bariatric surgery data registry, PROs platform.

      Methods

      Patient- and clinic-reported 1-year postoperative weight and co-morbidities were compared for matched PROs and registry records. The co-morbidities evaluated were diabetes, sleep apnea, hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and hyperlipidemia. Weight difference in pounds and nominal groupings (binary, 4-level) for co-morbidities were assessed for agreement between data sources using descriptive statistics, Bland–Altman plots, multiple regression, and kappa coefficients. Sensitivity analyses and follow-up by response method were examined.

      Results

      Among 1130 patients with both 1-year PROs and registry weights, 95% of patient-reported weights were within 13 lb of the registry-recorded weight, and patients underreported their weight by ∼2 lb, on average. Percent agreement and kappa coefficients were highest for diabetes (n = 999; binary: 94%, κ = .72; 4-level: 86%, κ = .71) and lowest for gastroesophageal reflux disease (n = 1032; binary: 75%, κ = .40; 4-level: 57%, κ = .35). Of patients eligible for both PROs and registry 1-year follow-up, 21% had PROs only.

      Conclusions

      One-year patient- and clinic-reported weights and disease status for patients with diabetes and hypertension showed high agreement. The degree of bias from patient report was low. Patient report is a viable alternative to clinic report for certain objective measurements and may increase follow-up.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Weldring T.
        • Smith S.M.
        Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
        Health Serv Insights. 2013; 6: 61-68
        • Maukonen M.
        • Mannisto S.
        • Tolonen H.
        A comparison of measured versus self-reported anthropometrics for assessing obesity in adults: a literature review.
        Scand J Public Health. 2018; 46: 565-579
        • Connor Gorber S.
        • Tremblay M.
        • Moher D.
        • Gorber B.
        A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review.
        Obes Rev. 2007; 8: 307-326
        • Christian N.J.
        • King W.C.
        • Yanovsky S.Z.
        • Courcoulas A.P.
        • Belle S.H.
        Validity of self-reported weights following bariatric surgery.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 2454-2456
        • Jackson J.M.
        • DeFor T.A.
        • Crain A.L.
        • et al.
        Validity of diabetes self-reports in the Women’s Health Initiative.
        Menopause. 2014; 21: 861-868
        • Muggah E.
        • Graves E.
        • Bernnett C.
        • Manuel D.G.
        Ascertainment of chronic diseases using population health data: a comparison of health administrative data and patient self-report.
        BMC Public Health. 2013; 13: 16
        • Barber J.
        • Muller S.
        • Whitehurst T.
        • Hay E.
        Measuring morbidity: self-report or health care records?.
        Fam Pract. 2010; 27: 25-30
        • El Fakiri F.
        • Bruijnzeels M.A.
        • Hoes A.W.
        No evidence for marked ethnic differences in accuracy of self-reported diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 1271-1279
        • Merkin S.S.
        • Cavanaugh K.
        • Longenecker J.C.
        • Fink N.E.
        • Levey A.S.
        • Powe N.R.
        Agreement of self-reported comorbid conditions with medical and physician reports varied by disease among end-stage renal disease patients.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60: 634-642
        • Duval K.
        • Marceau P.
        • Perusse L.
        • Lacassa Y.
        An overview of obesity-specific quality of life questionnaires.
        Obes Rev. 2006; 7: 347-360
        • Hays R.D.
        • Bjorner J.B.
        • Revicki D.A.
        • Spritzer K.L.
        • Cella D.
        Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items.
        Qual Life Res. 2009; 18: 873-880
        • Patrick D.L.
        • Bushnell D.M.
        • Rothman M.
        Performance of two self-report measures for evaluating obesity and weight loss.
        Obes Res. 2004; 12: 48-57
        • Ranganathan P.
        • Pramesh C.S.
        • Aggarwal R.
        Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: measures of agreement.
        Perspect Clin Res. 2017; 8: 187-191
        • Watson P.F.
        • Petrie A.
        Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology.
        Theriogenology. 2010; 73: 1167-1179
        • Muller C.J.
        • MacLehose R.F.
        Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations.
        Int J Epidemiol. 2014; 43: 962-970
        • Frey M.
        Is weight fluctuation normal? How much daily weight fluctuation you should expect.
        (Verywell Fit [Internet]. 2022 Sep [cited 2021]:[about 6 p.]. Available from:)
        • Jones R.
        • Galmiche J.P.
        Review: what do we mean by GERD?—definition and diagnosis.
        Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005; 22: 2-10
        • Richter J.E.
        • Rubenstein J.H.
        Presentation and epidemiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
        Gastroenterology. 2018; 154: 267-276
        • Kichloo A.
        • Albosta M.
        • Dettloff K.
        • et al.
        Telemedicine, the current COVID-19 pandemic and the future: a narrative review and perspectives moving forward in the USA.
        Fam Med Commun Health. 2020; 8e000530
        • Podsakoff P.M.
        • MacKenzie S.B.
        • Lee J.-Y.
        • Podsakoff N.P.
        Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies.
        J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88: 879-903
        • Committee on Economics
        ASA physical status classification system. American Society of Anesthesiologists.
        ([Internet]. 2014 Oct [updated 2020 Dec 13; cited 2021]:[about 4 p.]. Available from:)