Measurement properties of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems: a systematic review.
Rebecca Ataman, Rehab Alhasani, Line Auneau-Enjalbert, Adria Quigley, Henry Ukachukwu Michael, Sara Ahmed
{"title":"Measurement properties of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems: a systematic review.","authors":"Rebecca Ataman, Rehab Alhasani, Line Auneau-Enjalbert, Adria Quigley, Henry Ukachukwu Michael, Sara Ahmed","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02722-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury impact all areas of individuals' quality of life. A synthesis of available evidence for the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems could inform evidence-based clinical practice and research. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature of existing evidence on the measurement properties of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL among rehabilitation populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework for evaluating measures to guide this systematic review. We searched nine electronic databases and registries, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. Two independent reviewers screened selected articles and extracted the data. We used COSMIN's thresholds to synthesize measurement properties evidence (insufficient, sufficient), and the modified GRADE approach to synthesize evidence quality (very-low, low, moderate, high).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 16 studies for SCI-QoL and 14 studies for TBI-QoL. Both measurement systems have sufficient content validity, structural validity, internal consistency and construct validity across nearly all domains (GRADE: high). Most SCI-QoL domains and some TBI-QoL domains have sufficient evidence of cross-cultural validity and test-retest reliability (GRADE: moderate-high). Besides the cognition domains of TBI-QoL, which have indeterminate evidence for measurement error and sufficient evidence for responsiveness (GRADE: high), there is no additional evidence available for these measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Rehabilitation researchers and clinicians can use SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL to describe and evaluate patients. Further evidence of measurement error, responsiveness, and predictive validity would advance the use and interpretation of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL in rehabilitation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11749626/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02722-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury impact all areas of individuals' quality of life. A synthesis of available evidence for the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems could inform evidence-based clinical practice and research. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature of existing evidence on the measurement properties of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL among rehabilitation populations.
Methods: We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework for evaluating measures to guide this systematic review. We searched nine electronic databases and registries, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. Two independent reviewers screened selected articles and extracted the data. We used COSMIN's thresholds to synthesize measurement properties evidence (insufficient, sufficient), and the modified GRADE approach to synthesize evidence quality (very-low, low, moderate, high).
Results: We included 16 studies for SCI-QoL and 14 studies for TBI-QoL. Both measurement systems have sufficient content validity, structural validity, internal consistency and construct validity across nearly all domains (GRADE: high). Most SCI-QoL domains and some TBI-QoL domains have sufficient evidence of cross-cultural validity and test-retest reliability (GRADE: moderate-high). Besides the cognition domains of TBI-QoL, which have indeterminate evidence for measurement error and sufficient evidence for responsiveness (GRADE: high), there is no additional evidence available for these measurement properties.
Conclusion: Rehabilitation researchers and clinicians can use SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL to describe and evaluate patients. Further evidence of measurement error, responsiveness, and predictive validity would advance the use and interpretation of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL in rehabilitation.
期刊介绍：
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
