David O Francis1, James J Daniero2, Kristen L Hovis3, Nila Sathe4, Barbara Jacobson5, David F Penson6, Irene D Feurer7, Melissa L McPheeters8. 1. Vanderbilt Voice Center, Department of Otolaryngology, Bill Wilkerson Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TNCenter for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, TNVanderbilt Evidence-Based Practice Center, Nashville, TN. 2. Center for Voice and Swallowing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 3. Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN. 4. Vanderbilt Evidence-Based Practice Center, Nashville, TNVanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TNDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 5. Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Bill Wilkerson Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 6. Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, TNVanderbilt Evidence-Based Practice Center, Nashville, TNDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TNDepartments of Urology and Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TNGeriatric Research and Education Coordination Center, Veteran's Administration Tennessee Valley Health System, Geriatric Research and Education Coordination Center, Nashville, TN. 7. Center for Surgical Quality and Outcomes Research, Nashville, TNDepartments of Surgery and Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 8. Vanderbilt Evidence-Based Practice Center, Nashville, TNDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on voice-related patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults and to evaluate each instrument for the presence of important measurement properties. Method: MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and voice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in consultation with an expert panel. Three independent investigators assessed study methodology using criteria developed a priori. Measurement properties were examined and entered into evidence tables. Results: A total of 3,744 studies assessing voice-related constructs were identified. This list was narrowed to 32 PRO measures on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Questionnaire measurement properties varied widely. Important thematic deficiencies were apparent: (a) lack of patient involvement in the item development process, (b) lack of robust construct validity, and (c) lack of clear interpretability and scaling. Conclusions: PRO measures are a principal means of evaluating treatment effectiveness in voice-related conditions. Despite their prominence, available PRO measures have disparate methodological rigor. Care must be taken to understand the psychometric and measurement properties and the applicability of PRO measures before advocating for their use in clinical or research applications.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on voice-related patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults and to evaluate each instrument for the presence of important measurement properties. Method: MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health and Psychosocial Instrument databases were searched using relevant vocabulary terms and key terms related to PRO measures and voice. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed in consultation with an expert panel. Three independent investigators assessed study methodology using criteria developed a priori. Measurement properties were examined and entered into evidence tables. Results: A total of 3,744 studies assessing voice-related constructs were identified. This list was narrowed to 32 PRO measures on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Questionnaire measurement properties varied widely. Important thematic deficiencies were apparent: (a) lack of patient involvement in the item development process, (b) lack of robust construct validity, and (c) lack of clear interpretability and scaling. Conclusions: PRO measures are a principal means of evaluating treatment effectiveness in voice-related conditions. Despite their prominence, available PRO measures have disparate methodological rigor. Care must be taken to understand the psychometric and measurement properties and the applicability of PRO measures before advocating for their use in clinical or research applications.
Authors: Hayley A Hutchings; Wai-Yee Cheung; Ian T Russell; Dharmaraj Durai; Laith Alrubaiy; John G Williams Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2015-04-02 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Stephen T Wegener; Renan C Castillo; Sara E Heins; Anna N Bradford; Mary Zadnik Newell; Andrew N Pollak; Ellen J MacKenzie Journal: Rehabil Psychol Date: 2014-03-10
Authors: Kira E Riehm; Linda Kwakkenbos; Marie-Eve Carrier; Susan J Bartlett; Vanessa L Malcarne; Luc Mouthon; Warren R Nielson; Serge Poiraudeau; Karen Nielsen; Murray Baron; Tracy Frech; Marie Hudson; Janet Pope; Maureen Sauve; Maria E Suarez-Almazor; Fredrick M Wigley; Brett D Thombs Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Donald L Patrick; Jordi Alonso; Paul W Stratford; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Benjamin M Davies; Alvaro Yanez Touzet; Oliver D Mowforth; Keng Siang Lee; Danyal Khan; Julio C Furlan; Michael G Fehlings; James S Harrop; Carl Moritz Zipser; Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto; James Milligan; Ellen Sarewitz; Armin Curt; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Bizhan Aarabi; Timothy F Boerger; Lindsay Tetreault; Robert Chen; James D Guest; Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan; Iwan Sadler; Shirley Widdop; Angus G K McNair; Brian K Kwon; Mark R N Kotter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Matthew R Naunheim; Jennifer B Dai; Benjamin J Rubinstein; Leanne Goldberg; Alan Weinberg; Mark S Courey Journal: Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Cara Damico Smith; Natalia Arroyo; Kemberlee Bonnet; David Schlundt; Margarete Wichmann; Irene Feurer; David O Francis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alvaro Yanez Touzet; Aniqah Bhatti; Esmee Dohle; Faheem Bhatti; Keng Siang Lee; Julio C Furlan; Michael G Fehlings; James S Harrop; Carl Moritz Zipser; Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto; James Milligan; Ellen Sarewitz; Armin Curt; Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar; Bizhan Aarabi; Timothy F Boerger; Lindsay Tetreault; Robert Chen; James D Guest; Sukhvinder Kalsi-Ryan; Angus Gk McNair; Mark Kotter; Benjamin Davies Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 2.692