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

被引:28
作者
Mokkink, Lidwine B. [1 ,2 ]
Elsman, Ellen B. M. [1 ,2 ]
Terwee, Caroline B. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Epidemiol & Data Sci, Amsterdam UMC, Locat AMC, J1B-225, Meibergdreef 9, NL-1105 AZ Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Amsterdam Publ Hlth Res Inst, Methodol, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Systematic reviews; Outcome measurement instrument; Patient-reported outcome measures; Measurement properties; COSMIN;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
PurposeSystematic 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.MethodsAdaptations 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that measure aspects of health from the patient perspective. To measure a specific health aspect, often dozens of PROMs are available. To choose the best PROM, a systematic review of PROMs can be conducted, in which all information on the quality and feasibility of each available PROM is collected, rated, and compared. Based on such a review a choice for the most suitable PROM for a certain study or clinical application can be made. However, conducting a systematic review of PROMs is very challenging, because nine quality aspects of PROMs need to be taken into account.In this article, we present an updated step-by-step guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Each of these steps is described in detail in an accompanying manual. This updated guideline helps researchers to conduct systematic reviews of PROMs in a systematic and transparent way. It also helps readers of systematic reviews to understand how the review was conducted and to check the conclusions about which PROMs are recommended based on their quality.
引用
收藏
页码:2929 / 2939
页数:11
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   The Majority of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Pediatric Orthopaedic Research Are Used Without Validation [J].
Arguelles, Gabriel R. ;
Shin, Max ;
Lebrun, Drake G. ;
Kocher, Mininder S. ;
Baldwin, Keith D. ;
Patel, Neeraj M. .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2021, 41 (01) :E74-E79
[2]  
Beaton D., 2024, THE OMERACT HDB
[3]   Evaluating medical tests: introducing the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy [J].
Bossuyt, Patrick M. ;
Deeks, Jonathan J. ;
Leeflang, Mariska M. ;
Takwoingi, Yemisi ;
Flemyng, Ella .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (07)
[4]   Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote [J].
Bramer, Wichor M. ;
Milic, Jelena ;
Mast, Frans .
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2017, 105 (01) :84-87
[5]   Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues [J].
Churruca, Kate ;
Pomare, Chiara ;
Ellis, Louise A. ;
Long, Janet C. ;
Henderson, Suzanna B. ;
Murphy, Lisa E. D. ;
Leahy, Christopher J. ;
Braithwaite, Jeffrey .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2021, 24 (04) :1015-1024
[6]  
Elsman A. B. M., 2024, METHODOLOGICAL UNPUB
[7]  
Elsman E. B. M., 2024, QUAL LIFE RES
[8]   Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes [J].
Elsman, Ellen B. M. ;
Mokkink, Lidwine B. ;
Langendoen-Gort, Marlous ;
Rutters, Femke ;
Beulens, Joline ;
Elders, Petra J. M. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. .
BMJ OPEN DIABETES RESEARCH & CARE, 2022, 10 (03)
[9]   GRADE:: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations [J].
Guyatt, Gordon H. ;
Oxman, Andrew D. ;
Vist, Gunn E. ;
Kunz, Regina ;
Falck-Ytter, Yngve ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Schuenemann, Holger J. .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2008, 336 (7650) :924-926
[10]  
Higgins J.P.T., 2022, Cochrane