The article “Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to perform a literature search” was published in 2003, but the continuing technological developments in databases and search filters have rendered that guide out of date. The present guide fills an existing gap in this area; it provides the reader with strategies for developing a searchable clinical question, creating an efficient search strategy, accessing appropriate databases, and skillfully retrieving the best evidence to address the research question.

Background: A multiphased mixed-methods study was performed to develop and validate a comprehensive patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for arm lymphedema in women with breast cancer (i.e., the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module). Methods: Qualitative interviews (January 2017 and June 2018) were performed with 15 women to elicit concepts specific to arm lymphedema after breast cancer treatment. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded. Scales were refined through cognitive interviews (October and Decemeber 2018) with 16 patients and input from 12 clinical experts. The scales were field-tested (October 2019 and January 2020) with an international sample of 3222 women in the United States and Denmark. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine reliability and validity. Results: The qualitative phase resulted in six independently functioning scales that measure arm symptoms, function, appearance, psychological function, and satisfaction with information and with arm sleeves. In the RMT analysis, all items in each scale had ordered thresholds and nonsignificant chi-square p values. For all the scales, the reliability statistics with and without extremes for the Person Separation Index were 0.80 or higher, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 or higher, and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were 0.92 or higher. Lower (worse) scores on the LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity scales were associated with reporting of more severe arm swelling, an arm problem caused by cancer and/or its treatment, and wearing of an arm sleeve in the past 12 months. Conclusions: The LYMPH-Q Upper Extremity Module can be used to measure outcomes that matter to women with upper extremity lymphedema. This new PROM was designed using a modern psychometric approach and, as such, can be used in research and in clinical care.

Background: To meaningfully understand outcomes of gender-affirming care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are grounded in what matters to individuals seeking care are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive PROM to assess outcomes of gender-affirming care in clinical practice, research, and quality initiatives (the GENDER-Q). Methods: Internationally established guidelines for PROM development were used to create a field test version of the GENDER-Q. In-depth interviews were conducted from December 2018 to March 2020 with youth and adults aged 16 years and older who were seeking or had received gender-affirming care at outpatient clinics providing gender-affirming care located within tertiary care centers or communities in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands or the US. Data were analyzed and used to develop a conceptual framework and an item pool, which was used to develop preliminary scales. Between February 2021 to November 2021, iterative feedback was sought from clinicians and patient participants on the scales and used to refine or develop new scales. The revised scales were pilot-tested using a crowd-sourcing platform between February 2022 and April 2022. Results: Data from interviews with 84 participants (aged 34 ± 14 years) resulted in a conceptual framework of the GENDER-Q with 13 domains measuring health-related quality of life, sexual, urination, gender practices, voice, hair, face and neck, body, breasts, genital feminization, chest, genital masculinization, and experience of care. Preliminary versions of 44 scales were developed covering most concepts in the conceptual framework. Iterative feedback was obtained from clinician experts (4 to 37 experts per scale; response rate, 67%) and 7–14 patient participants (depending on scale). All scales were refined, and 15 new scales were developed, resulting in 55 scales in the field test version of the GENDER-Q. In total, 601 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people (aged 25 ± 6 years) participated in the pilot field test and the data were used to make changes to the field test survey. Conclusion: The GENDER-Q was developed using extensive input from TGD individuals and clinician experts and represents the most comprehensive set of independently functioning scales that are available to date. An international field test of the GENDER-Q was completed in 2024 and the GENDER-Q is available for use in patient care, clinical research and quality improvement efforts.

Recent systematic reviews have identified that current patient-reported outcome instruments have content limitations when used to measure change following bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to measure change after bariatric surgery using the BODY-Q, a PRO instrument designed for weight loss and body contouring. The BODY-Q is composed of 18 independently functioning scales and an obesity-specific symptom checklist that measure appearance, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and experience of health-care. The sample for this study included patients who were exploring or seeking bariatric surgery in Hamilton (Canada) at the time of the BODY-Q field-test study and who agreed to further contact from the research team. These patients were invited to complete 12 BODY-Q scales and the symptom checklist between 7 June 2016 and 29 November 2016. Data were collected online (REDCap) and via postal surveys. Clinical change was measured using paired t-tests with effect sizes and standardized response means. The survey was completed by 58 of 89 (65%) pre-bariatric participants from the original BODY-Q field-test sample. The non-participants did not differ from participants in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, BMI or initial BODY-Q scale scores. Participants who had undergone bariatric surgery had a mean BMI of 49 (SD = 7) at time 1 and 35 (SD = 7) at time 2. Time since bariatric surgery was on average 2 years (SD = 0.5) (range 0.4 to 3 years). Percentage total weight loss ranged from 12 to 51 (mean 31, SD = 9). The difference in the proportion of patients to report an obesity-specific symptom on the BODY-Q checklist was significantly lower at follow-up for 5 of 10 symptoms. Participants improved on BODY-Q scales measuring appearance (of abdomen, back, body, buttocks, hips/outer thighs, inner thigh), body image and physical function (p < 0.001 on paired t-tests) and social function (p = 0.002 on paired t-test). These changes were associated with moderate to large effect sizes (0.60 to 2.29) and standardized response means (0.47 to 1.35). The BODY-Q provides a set of independently functioning scales that measure issues important to patients who undergo weight loss. BODY-Q scales were responsive to measuring clinical change associated with weight loss 2 years after bariatric surgery.

Importance: There is an urgent need for a validated gender-affirming care–specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).Objective: To field test the GENDER-Q, a new PROM for gender-affirming care, in a large, international sample of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) adults and evaluate its psychometric properties.Design, Setting, and Participants: This international cross-sectional study was conducted among TGD adults aged 18 years and older who were seeking or had received gender-affirming care within the past 5 years at 21 clinical sites across Canada, the United States, the Netherlands, and Spain; participants were also recruited through community groups (eg, crowdsourcing platform, social media). The study was conducted between February 2022 and March 2024. Participants had to be capable of completing the instrument in English, Danish, Dutch, or French-Canadian. Eligible participants accessed an online REDCap survey to complete sociodemographic questions and questions about gender-affirming care they had received or sought (ie, to look, function, or feel masculine, feminine, gender fluid, or another way).Main Outcome and Measures: Branching logic was used to assign relevant instrument scales. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to examine the fit of the observed data to the Rasch model for each scale. Test-retest reliability and hypothesis-based construct validity of instrument scales were examined. The hypothesis was that instrument scale scores would increase with better outcomes on corresponding categorical questions.Results: A total of 5497 participants (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [12.3] years; 1837 [33.4%] men; 1307 [23.8%] nonbinary individuals; and 2036 [37.0%] women) completed the field test survey. Participants sought or had the following types of gender-affirming care: 2674 (48.6%) masculinizing, 2271 (41.3%) femininizing, and 552 (10.0%) other. RMT analysis led to the development of 54 unidimensional scales and 2 checklists covering domains of health-related quality of life, sexual, urination, gender practices, voice, hair, face and neck, body, breasts, genital feminization, chest, genital masculinization, and experience of care. Test-retest reliability of the scales (intraclass correlation coefficient [average] >0.70) was demonstrated. Only 1 scale (phalloplasty donor flap) had an ICC less than 0.70. As hypothesized, scores increased incrementally with better associated self-reported categorical responses. For example, among 661 participants who reported poor psychological well-being, the mean (SD) scale score was 45 (18) points; for those who reported excellent psychological well-being, the mean (SD) scale score was 85 (16) points (P < .001).Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of 5497 TGD adults, the instrument demonstrated reliability and validity. The instrument was validated in an international sample and is designed to collect and compare evidence-based outcome data for gender-affirming care from the patients’ perspective.