Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review

Sánchez, Sonia Lorente; Viladrich, Carme; Vives, Jaume; Losilla, Josep-María

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038

Cited by 25 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Data extraction will include the following domains 30 : Study publication details Status of study: completed or ongoing Geographical coverage, if applicable Aims/purpose Review methods (e.g. systematic or non-systematic review; use of COSMIN, EMPRO or other criteria, 45 if applicable) Inclusion criteria of systematic review Population(s), including condition(s) Concept(s) Context(s) Names of dPROMs Measurement properties Critical appraisal approach to included studies, if applicable Outcomes regarding measurement properties of dPROMs or real-world value of dPROMs, including method of measurement Key findings as they relate to our mapping review questions …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Review methods (e.g. systematic or non-systematic review; use of COSMIN, EMPRO or other criteria, 45 if applicable)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on a recently published meta-review of tools to assess the measurement properties of QoL instruments, 45 we will use the comprehensive COSMIN criteria to structure a cross-tabular summary of measurement properties reported in included reviews. We will additionally summarise reporting of feasibility, including burden and fairness, and use of measures for non-evaluative purposes, areas where COSMIN is less well developed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We will additionally summarise reporting of feasibility, including burden and fairness, and use of measures for non-evaluative purposes, areas where COSMIN is less well developed. 45 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A summary of literature characteristics will be depicted in tabular format, including countries and contexts in which studies were conducted, review methods, inclusion criteria, number and name of dPROMs reviewed, characteristics of the study populations and oral conditions, and outcomes related to the real-world value of dPROMs. 30 Based on a recently published meta-review of tools to assess the measurement properties of QoL instruments, 45 we will use the comprehensive COSMIN criteria to structure a cross-tabular summary of measurement properties reported in included reviews. We will additionally summarise reporting of feasibility, including burden and fairness, and use of measures for nonevaluative purposes, areas where COSMIN is less well developed.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims This research synthesis protocol addresses the question: what is the evidence concerning measurement properties of dental patient reported outcome measures (dPROMs), and regarding the real-world value of dPROMs, and where are the gaps in this evidence? Evidence mapping will systematically examine reviews of quantitative dPROMs used to assess the impact of oral health on the quality of life of dental patients and research participants. Evidence gaps where future research or systematic reviews are required will be identified. Materials and methods This protocol accords with the PRISMA-P guideline. Open Science Framework Registration 10.17605/OSF.IO/RZD3N. Biomedical and grey literature databases will be searched, adapting the same search strategy. Published or unpublished reviews evaluating any dPROM will be considered for inclusion. There will be no restriction by date, setting, or language. AMSTAR2 and ROBIS will evaluate risk of bias. Psychometric criteria will be adapted from COSMIN. Data will be summarised separately for specific populations and conditions. Discussion The findings will enable clinicians and researchers to identify methodologically robust dPROMs, appropriate for use with relevant populations and conditions. Implications for real-world practice and research will be discussed.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Review methods (e.g. systematic or non-systematic review; use of COSMIN, EMPRO or other criteria, 45 if applicable)…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We will additionally summarise reporting of feasibility, including burden and fairness, and use of measures for non-evaluative purposes, areas where COSMIN is less well developed. 45 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A cross‐sectional observational study of quality of life in adult short bowel syndrome patients: What role does autologous gut reconstruction play?

Braun,

Arensmeyer,

Hausen

et al. 2024

Nut in Clin Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIntestinal failure (IF) describes a condition of insufficient absorption capacity and general function of the gastrointestinal tract and may necessitate long‐term intravenous fluid and nutrient supplementation. Quality of life (QoL) may be reduced in these patients. The aim of the study was to analyze QoL by two tools (SBS‐QoL and SF‐12) to elucidate which parameters impact QoL in patients with IF.MethodsQoL was assessed in a cohort of 105 patients with IF at a tertiary referral center for intestinal rehabilitation. Complete data for SBS‐QoL and SF‐12 were available in 44 of 81 surviving patients at a single time point for a cross‐sectional analysis. Medical data, outcome parameters, and comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index [CCI]) were extracted and entered in a prospective database for analysis and correlation with QoL assessment.ResultsSubscales of SBS‐QoL and SF‐12 highly correlated with each other (P = −0.64 for physical subscales; P = −0.75 for mental subscales). Significant differences in QoL were detected in patients with Messing Type I (end‐jejunostomy) and Type III anatomy (ileocolonic anastomosis) (one‐way ANOVA: P < 0.05). Performance of autologous gut reconstruction (AGR) was associated with significantly better physical QoL. CCI correlated significantly with QoL scores. Longer duration of illness resulted in higher QoL in SBS‐QoL (reduction of 0.15 per month; P = 0.045).ConclusionBoth SBS‐QoL and SF‐12 are useful to determine QoL in patients with IF. AGR was associated with improved QoL by changing SBS‐related anatomy and function. Thus, AGR surgery should be included in the treatment plan whenever possible. Comorbidities should be addressed interdisciplinarily to improve QoL.

show abstract

Patient‐reported outcome measures in pediatrics: An overview of reviews

Lei,

Xiong,

Wang

et al. 2024

Pediatric Discovery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized and validated self‐administered questionnaires for assessing patients' overall well‐being, disease burden, and health‐related quality of life. For children, their cognitive development, reading ability and language skills need to be considered when selecting the optimal PROM. High‐quality systematic reviews (SRs) can provide a comprehensive overview of the available PROMs and provide evidence‐based recommendations for pediatricians. Therefore, this study aims to provide an overview of pediatric SRs of PROMs. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify SRs of PROMs published in English focusing on the health of children and adolescents. Four researchers performed literature screening and data extraction, and evaluated the methodological quality of SRs using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews tool. Forty‐four SRs of PROMs published between 2006 and 2022 were included, recommending 123 PROMs, of which the most recommended were the pediatric quality of life inventory and its subscales and the EuroQol five dimension questionnaire. Thirty‐six conditions were addressed; the most frequent ICD‐11 category was “Mental, behavioral or neurodevelopmental disorders” (n = 9, 20.5%). The PROMs covered nine categories of contents to measure, the most frequent being the quality of life (n = 37, 30.1%). Content validity (n = 67, 54.5%) and internal consistency (n = 65, 52.9%) were the most commonly reported and measurement error (n = 10, 8.1%) was the least. The methodological and reporting of psychometric properties for SRs need further improvement. In addition, reporting of details such as the age when children should self‐report the measures needs also improvement.

show abstract

Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

A cross‐sectional observational study of quality of life in adult short bowel syndrome patients: What role does autologous gut reconstruction play?

Patient‐reported outcome measures in pediatrics: An overview of reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About