L B Mokkink1, H C W de Vet2, C A C Prinsen2, D L Patrick3, J Alonso4, L M Bouter2,5, C B Terwee2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.mokkink@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d'Investigacio Medica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. METHODS: For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.
PURPOSE: The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. METHODS: For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.
Authors: Neil Aaronson; Jordi Alonso; Audrey Burnam; Kathleen N Lohr; Donald L Patrick; Edward Perrin; Ruth E Stein Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Sandra D M Bot; Michael R de Boer; Daniëlle A W M van der Windt; Dirk L Knol; Joost Dekker; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-24 Impact factor: 6.437
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: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John P A Ioannidis; Sander Greenland; Mark A Hlatky; Muin J Khoury; Malcolm R Macleod; David Moher; Kenneth F Schulz; Robert Tibshirani Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: C B Terwee; C A C Prinsen; A Chiarotto; M J Westerman; D L Patrick; J Alonso; L M Bouter; H C W de Vet; L B Mokkink Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-03-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Shannon Pike; Anne Cusick; Kylie Wales; Lisa Cameron; Lynne Turner-Stokes; Stephen Ashford; Natasha A Lannin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Claire E H Barber; JoAnn Zell; Jinoos Yazdany; Aileen M Davis; Laura Cappelli; Linda Ehrlich-Jones; Donna Everix; J Carter Thorne; Victoria Bohm; Lisa Suter; Alex Limanni; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Roberto Costa Krug; J P Caneiro; Daniel Cury Ribeiro; Ben Darlow; Marcelo Faria Silva; Jefferson Fagundes Loss Journal: Braz J Phys Ther Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Cara Shearer; Hannah R Goss; Lynne M Boddy; Zoe R Knowles; Elizabeth J Durden-Myers; Lawrence Foweather Journal: Sports Med Open Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Tara Behroozian; Lauren T Milton; Neil H Shear; Erin McKenzie; Yasmeen Razvi; Irene Karam; Kucy Pon; Henry Lam; Emily Lam; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603