Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified?

Abstract

Background: Combining outcomes and the use of standardized effect measures such as effect size and standardized response mean across instruments allows more comprehensive meta-analyses and should avoid selection bias. However, such analysis ideally requires that the instruments correlate strongly and that the underlying assumption of similar responsiveness is fulfilled. The aim of the study was to assess the correlation between two widely used health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and to compare the instruments' responsiveness on a study level.

The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature

“…This heterogeneity hindered assessment of the impact of the interventions [54,55]. The majority of studies assessed outcomes from more than one aspect of health care (process, outcomes, and satisfaction with care) without taking multiple comparisons into account [56,57].…”

Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Given the range of different scales to measure OHRQoL, each with different scoring methods and scoring ranges, any synthesis of data is challenging; different scales may be combined for meta-analysis provided that scales measure similar constructs and that researchers are mindful of the increased risk of heterogeneity. [32][33][34][35] The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the impact of treatment with ISCs, IFDPs, IRDPs, RPDs, and TFDPs on quantifiable measures of OHRQoL in patients with partial edentulism. The following research question was posed: "What is the effect of different dental prosthetic interventions for replacing missing teeth in partially dentate patients with respect to the changes in oral health-related quality of life?"…”

Exercise and global well-being in community-dwelling adults with fibromyalgia: a systematic review with meta-analysis

“…In addition, the authors of the previous systematic review included multiple measures of global well-being [7], an approach that may be problematic given that recent research has suggested that the pooling of global well-being instruments could result in biased meta-analyses [20]. More specifically, the use of different instruments to assess global well-being might attenuate any estimated effects or add spurious between-study variance because of between-measure "noise."…”