ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews.DesignMeta-review.MethodsElectronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.ResultsA total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness).ConclusionsThe reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065232.

Literature searches are important components of systematic reviews. They are not only informative of the retrieval process, but they also set the data to be analyzed and influence additional components of systematic reviews. Despite the available guidelines, several studies have shown that the quality of reporting in systematic reviews is deficient in several medical fields. Systematic reviews may not comply completely with those guidelines despite explicitly stating they do. This protocol intends to answer to what extent systematic reviews published in rheumatology journals have complied with the PRISMA's search strategy guidelines published in 2009. The objective of the study is to analyze the compliance with the PRISMA (2009) search strategy guidelines among systematic reviews published in leading rheumatology journals. Inclusion criteria for this umbrella review protocol are systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that mention having followed the PRISMA statement (2009) in their methods section, and published in journals listed in the Rheumatology category of the Journal of Citations Report 2020. Exclusion criteria are articles published before 2009; retraction letters, notes, expressions of concern; systematic reviews using PRISMA 2020. Databases to be consulted are Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus, from inception to present. Data summaries will be presented in graphs, figures, tables and network maps. A narrative synthesis will be described. This protocol complies with guidelines such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-A, PRISMA-P, PRISMA-S, PRESS, and JBI Manual for evidence synthesis, as long as it is suitable for umbrella review protocols. Articles in any language will be considered.

Humidifying the nasal mucosa can help to reduce the need for professional procedures, oxygen requirements and hospitalisation length. Further research into the economic savings involved is recommended.