Michaela Gabes1,2, Helge Knüttel3, Gesina Kann4, Christina Tischer5,6, Christian J Apfelbacher5. 1. Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Otto-Von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. michaela.gabes@med.ogu.de. 2. Medical Sociology, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Dr.-Gessler-Str. 17, 93051, Regensburg, Germany. michaela.gabes@med.ogu.de. 3. University Library, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. 4. Medical Sociology, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Dr.-Gessler-Str. 17, 93051, Regensburg, Germany. 5. Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Otto-Von-Guericke-University Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 6. State Institute of Health, Bavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Bad Kissingen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of all existing PROMs that have been validated in hyperhidrosis to at least some extend by applying the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Thereby, we aim to give a recommendation for the use of PROMs in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. METHODS: We considered studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement properties of PROMs as eligible. A systematic literature search in three big databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Furthermore, we applied predefined quality criteria for good measurement properties and finally, graded the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles reporting on 13 patient-reported outcome measures were included. Three instruments can be further recommended for use. They showed evidence for sufficient content validity and moderate- to high-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The methodological assessment showed existing evidence gaps for eight other PROMs, which therefore require further validation studies to make an adequate decision on their recommendation. The Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure-Axillary (HDSM-Ax) and the short-form health survey with 36 items (SF-36) were the only questionnaires not recommended for use in patients with hyperhidrosis due to moderate- to high-quality evidence for insufficient measurement properties. CONCLUSION: Three PROMs, the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index (HidroQoL), the Hyperhidrosis Questionnaire (HQ) and the Sweating Cognitions Inventory (SCI), can be recommended for use in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Results obtained with these three instruments can be seen as trustworthy. Nevertheless, further validation of all three PROMs is desirable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020170247.
PURPOSE: To critically appraise, compare and summarize the quality of all existing PROMs that have been validated in hyperhidrosis to at least some extend by applying the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Thereby, we aim to give a recommendation for the use of PROMs in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. METHODS: We considered studies evaluating, describing or comparing measurement properties of PROMs as eligible. A systematic literature search in three big databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science) was performed. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Furthermore, we applied predefined quality criteria for good measurement properties and finally, graded the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles reporting on 13 patient-reported outcome measures were included. Three instruments can be further recommended for use. They showed evidence for sufficient content validity and moderate- to high-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The methodological assessment showed existing evidence gaps for eight other PROMs, which therefore require further validation studies to make an adequate decision on their recommendation. The Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure-Axillary (HDSM-Ax) and the short-form health survey with 36 items (SF-36) were the only questionnaires not recommended for use in patients with hyperhidrosis due to moderate- to high-quality evidence for insufficient measurement properties. CONCLUSION: Three PROMs, the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index (HidroQoL), the Hyperhidrosis Questionnaire (HQ) and the Sweating Cognitions Inventory (SCI), can be recommended for use in future clinical trials in hyperhidrosis. Results obtained with these three instruments can be seen as trustworthy. Nevertheless, further validation of all three PROMs is desirable. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020170247.
Authors: M Gabes; C Jourdan; K Schramm; C Masur; C Abels; P Kamudoni; S Salek; C Apfelbacher Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Olwyn E Lynch; T Aherne; J Gibbons; M R Boland; É J Ryan; E Boyle; B Egan; S Tierney Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 1.568