Core Outcomes Measures for Inguinal Hernia Repair

Journal of the American College of Surgeons

Volumn 185, Issue 6, 1997, Pages 509-515

  Burney, Richard E ^a,c   Jones, Katherine R ^b   Coon, Jane Wilson ^b   Blewitt, Darby K ^b   Herm, Ann ^b   Peterson, Melissa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HOSPITALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY SURGERY; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INGUINAL HERNIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AMBULATORY SURGICAL PROCEDURES; BENCHMARKING; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HERNIA, INGUINAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 0031303650     PISSN: 10727515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s1072-7515(97)00108-7     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Eddy DM. Three battles to watch in the 1990s. JAMA 1993; 270:520-526.
2. McClure W. Buying right: the consequences of glut. Business Health 1985;September:43-46.
3. Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, et al. The medical outcomes study: an application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989;262:925-930.
4. Epstein AM. The outcomes movement: will it get us where we want to go? N Engl J Med 1990;323:266-269.
5. The best example is the Foundation for Accountability (FACCT). Portland, OR.
6. Filipi CJ, Gaston-Johansson F, McBride PJ, et al. An assessment of pain and return to normal activity: laparoscopic herniorrhaphy vs open tension-free Lichtenstein repair. Surg Endosc 1996;10:983-986.
7. Barkun JS, Wexler MJ, Bertleff S, et al. Quality of life after hernia repair. Surg Forum 1996;47:664-666.
8. Burney RE, Jones KR, Coon JW, et al. Outcomes assessment in common general surgical conditions. Surg Forum 1995; 46:618-621.
9. Burney RE, Jones KR, Coon JW, et al. Core outcome measures for inguinal hernia repair. Surg Forum 1996;47:627-630.
10. Ware JE, and Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
11. McHorney CA, Ware JA, Rachel Lu JF, and Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-66.
12. Medical Outcomes Trust. How to Score the SF-36 Health Survey. Boston: Medical Outcomes Trust, 1994.
13. Ware JE. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993: chap 10, 10-1-10-19.
14. Nyhus LM. Individualization of hernia repair: a new era. Surgery 1993;114:1-2.
15. Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressels S, et al. The sickness impact profile: conceptual formulation and methodology for the development of a health status measure. Int J Health Sci 1976;6:343-415.
16. Hunt SM, McEwen J, and McKenna SPO. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J Coll Gen Pract 1985;35:185-188.
17. Walsh DC, Connor E, Tracey LV, et al. Posthospital convalescence and return to work. Health Aff (Millwood) 1989; Fall:76-90.
18. Reemstma K. Outcomes assessment: a primer. Bull Am Coll Surg 1997;82:34-39.