C A C Prinsen1,2, L B Mokkink3, L M Bouter3, J Alonso4, D L Patrick5, H C W de Vet3, C B Terwee3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.prinsen@vumc.nl. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.prinsen@vumc.nl. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Health Services Research Unit, IMIM-Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute; CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. RESULTS: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. RESULTS: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
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: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Henrica C W de Vet; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Caroline B Terwee; Nicole van der Roer; Dirk L Knol; Heleen Beckerman; Maarten Boers; Lex M Bouter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-10-11 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Henrica C de Vet; Caroline B Terwee; Raymond W Ostelo; Heleen Beckerman; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Elena Tsangaris; Anne F Klassen; Manraj N Kaur; Sophocles Voineskos; Louise Bordeleau; Toni Zhong; Justin Broyles; Andrea L Pusic Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 5.344
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: Jayme S Knutson; Amy S Friedl; Kristine M Hansen; Terri Z Hisel; Mary Y Harley Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 3.966
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