2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments

Abstract: BackgroundSystematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools for the selection of instruments for research and clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether the quality has improved since our previous study in 2007.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE between July 1, 2013, and June 19, 2014. The quality of the reviews was rated using a study-specifi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
94
0
9

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 126 publications
3
94
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…We considered using an additional quality rating such as the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) [92,93], but the sample size requirement for this tool means that almost all the studies included in this review would automatically receive a poor or fair rating, regardless of the conduct of the study. As a result, we determined that this rating would not provide any additional information to assist readers in discriminating between measures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We considered using an additional quality rating such as the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) [92,93], but the sample size requirement for this tool means that almost all the studies included in this review would automatically receive a poor or fair rating, regardless of the conduct of the study. As a result, we determined that this rating would not provide any additional information to assist readers in discriminating between measures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the quality of these reviews varies widely, and there is a lack of reviews of outcome measurement instruments for many outcomes in many disease areas [46]. More high-quality reviews are needed and the methodology of performing such reviews needs to be further developed and implemented.…”
Section: Future Science Groupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(9,10) The convergent construct validity verified the correlation among the QoR-40 measurements and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of postoperative recovery and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Version 2.0® (SF-36v2®). (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11) The discriminant construct validity was investigated by the comparison among groups of patients with or without a nursing diagnosis of retarded postoperative recovery and among groups of patients with or without urinary incontinence. (12) Reliability was verified by the internal consistency and responsiveness by the QoR-40 measurements over time.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Reliability was examined by internal consistency, according to Cronbach's alpha statistic. Results ≥0.70 (9,10) were considered acceptable. Responsiveness was investigated by the mean of standardized answers (Standardized Response Mean -SRM), obtained by the equation: initial measure -final measure/SD of the difference.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%