COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0

Published:2024-08-28 Issue: Volume: Page:
ISSN:0962-9343
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
language:en
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res

Author:

Mokkink Lidwine B.^ORCID,Elsman Ellen B.M.^ORCID,Terwee Caroline B.^ORCID

Abstract

Abstract Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties. Methods Adaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies. Results The updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs. Conclusion The quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Link

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6.pdf

Reference28 articles.

1. Beaton, D., Maxwell, L., Grosskleg, S., Shea, B., & Tugwell, P. (2024). The OMERACT Handbook. version 2.1. Retrieved March 1, from https://omeract.org/handbook/

2. Williamson, P. R., Altman, D. G., Bagley, H., Barnes, K. L., Blazeby, J. M., Brookes, S. T., Clarke, M., Gargon, E., Gorst, S., Harman, N., Kirkham, J. J., McNair, A., Prinsen, C. A. C., Schmitt, J., Terwee, C. B., & Young, B. (2017). The COMET handbook: Version 1.0. Trials, 18(Suppl 3), 280.

3. Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E. D., Leahy, C. J., & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024.

4. Arguelles, G., Shin, M., Lebrun, D., Kocher, M., Baldwin, K., & Patel, N. (2021). The majority of patient-reported outcome measures in pediatric orthopaedic research are used without validation. Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, 41(1), e74–e79.

5. Janssens, A., Thompson Coon, J., Rogers, M., Allen, K., Green, C., Jenkinson, C., Tennant, A., Logan, S., & Morris, C. (2015). A systematic review of generic multidimensional patient-reported outcome measures for children, part I: Descriptive characteristics. Value In Health : The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 18(2), 315–333.