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 22 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

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

Current Concepts and Considerations in Measuring Dysphagia-Related Quality of Life for People with Head and Neck Disease

Clunie

Toft

Simson

et al. 2023

Curr Otorhinolaryngol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review To provide an overview of current concepts and considerations in the measurement of dysphagia-related quality of life (QoL) for people with head and neck disease. We describe key psychometric and other tool properties that are important to consider when deciding which dysphagia QoL tool to use in practice. The review seeks to establish which tool/s best meet the required properties. Recent Findings Currently, no single dysphagia QoL tool meets all criteria. However, a few (SWAL QoL, MDADI, SOAL) meet several parameters and we highlight the current evidence base for these assessments. Summary QoL is essential to providing holistic clinical care and could also be an important outcome in research when evaluating interventions. Existing tools may benefit from re-validation studies which take account of progress made in the fields of instrument development, cross-cultural validity and patient centredness. It is also crucial to recognise that the value of capturing QoL in clinical practice is only realised by subsequent follow-up with the individual patient.

show abstract

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

Cited by 22 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

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

Current Concepts and Considerations in Measuring Dysphagia-Related Quality of Life for People with Head and Neck Disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About