A review and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for spasticity in persons with spinal cord damage: Recommendations from the Ability Network – an international initiative

Ertzgaard, Per; Nene, A.V.; Kiekens, Carlotte; Burns, Anthony S.

doi:10.1080/10790268.2019.1575533

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They conclude that PROMs are indispensable for determining health‐related quality of life and are a valuable adjunct to clinical and functional measures for the assessment of persons with spasticity following SCI. Two SCI‐specific spasticity PROMs—the Patient Reported Impact of Spasticity Measure (PRISM) and the Spinal Cord Injury‐Spasticity Evaluation Tool (SCI‐SET)—were proposed to capture spasticity symptoms 20 …”

Section: Assessing/quantifying Spasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Howard

Patel

2023

Muscle and Nerve

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spasticity is a complex and often disabling symptom for patients with upper motor neuron syndromes. Although spasticity arises from neurological disease, it often cascades into muscle and soft tissue changes, which may exacerbate symptoms and further hamper function. Effective management therefore hinges on early recognition and treatment.To this end, the definition of spasticity has expanded over time to more accurately

show abstract

Section: Assessing/quantifying Spasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Howard

Patel

2023

Muscle and Nerve

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only one study used SF-36 [ 45 ]. The latter was found to be the most useful generic measure in evaluating the impact of spasticity on QOL in patients with SCI [ 76 ]. Only seven of the 50 most cited articles that received 1,369 citations used PROMs for a variety of neurosurgical and neurological diseases.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of the Most Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Studies Published in the Neurospine Surgical Literature

Jamjoom,

Gahtani,

Alzahrani

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated tools that are widely utilized in research and patient care. Their diversity, quality, and application remain matters of peak research interest. This article is a review of the PROMs that were utilized in high-impact publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The 50 most cited articles on the subject were selected and analysed. Most (42 articles) were published in spine journals and, in particular, in the journal Spine (Phila Pa 1976) (28 articles). A total of 34 PROMs were utilized, of which 24 were used only once in single studies. The four most common PROMs were Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) (15 articles), Short Form-12 and Short Form-36 (SF-12 and SF-36) (11 articles), Ronald-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) (nine articles), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) (five articles). Nineteen articles focused on validating translated versions of 11 PROMs to other languages. The languages that had the maximal number of tools translated to amongst the highly cited articles were Italian (six tools), Portuguese (four tools), German (three tools), and Japanese (three tools). The most common diagnoses and the PROMs used for them were back pain and cervical spine disorder (SF-12 and SF-36 (nine articles), RMDQ (eight articles), and ODI (five articles)), and idiopathic scoliosis (SRS-22) (14 articles)). The median (range) article citation number was 137 (78-675). The four most cited PROMs were SRS-22 (2,869), SF-12 and SF-36 (2,558), RMDQ (1,456), and ODI (852). Citation numbers were positively impacted by article age and participant number but not by tool type or clinical diagnosis. In conclusion, a wide range of PROMs was utilized in the 50 most cited publications in the neurospine surgical literature. The majority were disease-specific rather than generic and targeted particular spine pathology. Neurosurgical PROMs were under-represented amongst the most cited articles. Awareness of the PROMs used in high-impact studies may be helpful in tool selection in future research. PROMs are valuable in standardizing subjective outcomes. Their use in research and clinical settings in any validated language is highly encouraged.

show abstract

“…The SF-36 was judged adequate in two reviews 46,47 . In contrast, Eyles et al 48 found the SF-36 unhelpful and Janssen and colleagues 49 reported that only one of the eight SF-36 sections was acceptable.…”

Section: Performance Of the Cosmin Checklistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists?

McKenna

Heaney

2021

Journal of Medical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As test-developers we have often been troubled by published reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Too often minor issues are judged important while other reviews exclude the best measures available. Perhaps this led several groups to make recommendations for evaluating the quality of PROMs. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist is the latest set of recommendations. While reviewing the COSMIN literature and reviews conducted using their recommendations several concerns became apparent. The checklist is not evidence-based, relying on the opinion of researchers experienced in health-related quality of life. PROMs measuring other types of outcomes are inadequately covered by the checklist. COSMIN choose to focus on Classical Test Theory and the checklists are not appropriate for use with PROMs developed using modern measurement. Such an approach only obstructs progress in the field of outcome measurement. The retrospective nature of the evaluations also penalizes new PROMs. While the checklists imply that composite, ordinal level measurement is acceptable, crucial aspects of instrument development and quality are excluded. Reviews based on the COSMIN checklist produce contradictory conclusions and fail to provide evidence to support the recommendations. These problems suggest that the checklists themselves lack reliability and validity. It is also clear that several reviewers lack the expertise to apply the checklists. Researchers require a good grounding in instrument development and psychometrics to produce quality reviews. The science of modern PROM development is still in an early phase. Few available PROMs have sufficient quality, limiting the need for complex reviews. Standards need to be agreed for high quality outcome measurement. The issue is who should set these standards? Most published reviews merely scratch the surface and lack essential detail. All reviews of PROMs should be treated with caution, irrespective of whether the COSMIN checklist was employed.

show abstract

A review and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for spasticity in persons with spinal cord damage: Recommendations from the Ability Network – an international initiative

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Spasticity evaluation and management tools

Review of the Most Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) Studies Published in the Neurospine Surgical Literature

Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About