PurposeSystematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs.MethodsBased on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.ResultsA consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review.ConclusionsThe COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.

PurposeThe original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties.MethodsFor each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis.ResultsMost important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system.ConclusionsThe COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area.Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1978-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundIn cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a “Core Outcome Set” (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population.MethodsInformed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed.ResultsOf the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %).ConclusionsThis study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) is an initiative of an international multidisciplinary team of researchers who aim to improve the selection of outcome measurement instruments both in research and in clinical practice by developing tools for selecting the most appropriate available instrument. Method: In this paper these tools are described, i.e. the COSMIN taxonomy and definition of measurement properties; the COSMIN checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties; a search filter for finding studies on measurement properties; a protocol for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; a database of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments; and a guideline for selecting outcome measurement instruments for Core Outcome Sets in clinical trials. Currently, we are updating the COSMIN checklist, particularly the standards for content validity studies. Also new standards for studies using Item Response Theory methods will be developed. Additionally, in the future we want to develop standards for studies on the quality of non-patient reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcomes and performance-based outcomes. Conclusions: In summary, we plea for more standardization in the use of outcome measurement instruments, for conducting high quality systematic reviews on measurement instruments in which the best available outcome measurement instrument is recommended, and for stopping the use of poor outcome measurement instruments.