Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments - PubMed (original) (raw)

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

Lidwine B Mokkink et al. Qual Life Res. 2009 Apr.

Free article

Abstract

A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.
  Allen EN, Chandler CI, Mandimika N, Leisegang C, Barnes K. Allen EN, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29372930 Free PMC article.
• Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
  Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, Glanville J, Gray A, Harris A, Johnston K, Lodge M. Williams C, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340. Health Technol Assess. 2006. PMID: 16959170
• Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.
  Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Sbidian E, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 33871055 Free PMC article. Updated.
• A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.
  Forbes C, Shirran L, Bagnall AM, Duffy S, ter Riet G. Forbes C, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 11701100
• WITHDRAWN: Interventions for fatigue and weight loss in adults with advanced progressive illness.
  Payne C, Wiffen PJ, Martin S. Payne C, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 7;4(4):CD008427. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008427.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28387447 Free PMC article.

Cited by

• Measurement of physician-patient communication--a systematic review.
  Zill JM, Christalle E, Müller E, Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I. Zill JM, et al. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 22;9(12):e112637. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112637. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25532118 Free PMC article. Review.
• Reliability generalization for Childhood Autism Rating Scale.
  Breidbord J, Croudace TJ. Breidbord J, et al. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013 Dec;43(12):2855-65. doi: 10.1007/s10803-013-1832-9. J Autism Dev Disord. 2013. PMID: 23636714
• The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.
  Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Mokkink LB, et al. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):539-49. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8. Epub 2010 Feb 19. Qual Life Res. 2010. PMID: 20169472 Free PMC article.
• Risk of behaviour suggestive of opioid abuse: a protocol for a systematic review of validated assessment tools.
  Galindo SR, Silva TPSD, Marinho MHDN, Ribeiro CESL, Lima MDDC, Vasconcelos SC. Galindo SR, et al. BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 2;8(10):e021948. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021948. BMJ Open. 2018. PMID: 30282680 Free PMC article.
• Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for bladder cancer: a systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.
  Mason SJ, Catto JWF, Downing A, Bottomley SE, Glaser AW, Wright P. Mason SJ, et al. BJU Int. 2018 Nov;122(5):760-773. doi: 10.1111/bju.14368. Epub 2018 Jun 8. BJU Int. 2018. PMID: 29726085 Free PMC article.

References

1. 1. Ann Intern Med. 1994 Apr 15;120(8):667-76 - PubMed
2. 1. Qual Life Res. 2002 May;11(3):193-205 - PubMed
3. 1. J Psychiatr Res. 2007 Jan-Feb;41(1-2):97-118 - PubMed
4. 1. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Feb;53(2):319-26 - PubMed
5. 1. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996 Aug;50(4):391-6 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • CORE
  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
  • Springer