PURPOSE: To systematically assess the validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were consulted. STUDY SELECTION: Only studies explicitly aimed at validation of PROMs specific for patients with inguinal hernia were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding measurement properties of PROMs were extracted from the included studies. Each study was critically assessed for methodological quality and each PROM was evaluated for sufficient measurement properties. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies, covering 11 different PROMs. The Carolinas Comfort Scale was the most frequently investigated PROM, being covered in five of the included publications. The included PROMs were evaluated according to nine different measurement properties, of which internal consistency and construct validity were the most frequently assessed. Evidence regarding content validity and structural validity was universally inadequate, according to the criteria for good measurement properties, as defined by the COSMIN. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, it is not possible to formulate recommendations for application of PROMs for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Further validation of the included PROMs is necessary especially regarding content validity and structural validity.
PURPOSE: To systematically assess the validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were consulted. STUDY SELECTION: Only studies explicitly aimed at validation of PROMs specific for patients with inguinal hernia were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data regarding measurement properties of PROMs were extracted from the included studies. Each study was critically assessed for methodological quality and each PROM was evaluated for sufficient measurement properties. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies, covering 11 different PROMs. The Carolinas Comfort Scale was the most frequently investigated PROM, being covered in five of the included publications. The included PROMs were evaluated according to nine different measurement properties, of which internal consistency and construct validity were the most frequently assessed. Evidence regarding content validity and structural validity was universally inadequate, according to the criteria for good measurement properties, as defined by the COSMIN. CONCLUSION: Based on the current evidence, it is not possible to formulate recommendations for application of PROMs for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. Further validation of the included PROMs is necessary especially regarding content validity and structural validity.