COSMIN 2.0 版患者报告结果测量系统性审查指南。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6
Lidwine B Mokkink, Ellen B M Elsman, Caroline B Terwee
{"title":"COSMIN 2.0 版患者报告结果测量系统性审查指南。","authors":"Lidwine B Mokkink, Ellen B M Elsman, Caroline B Terwee","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0.\",\"authors\":\"Lidwine B Mokkink, Ellen B M Elsman, Caroline B Terwee\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03761-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者报告结果测量指标(PROMs)的系统性综述是为研究或临床应用选择最合适的 PROM 的重要工具。开展这些综述具有挑战性,综述的质量也有待提高。我们更新了COSMIN关于PROMs系统性综述的指南,包括COSMIN偏倚风险检查表和COSMIN关于良好测量属性的标准:方法:根据我们应用 COSMIN 指南的经验、作者之间的讨论以及两项相关德尔菲研究的结果,对方法进行了调整:更新后的指南更加重视已发表的 PROMs 系统性综述中经常缺失或未优化的关键环节,如制定明确的研究问题和制定全面的搜索策略、评估偏倚风险、应用良好测量特性的标准、总结结果以及对证据质量进行分级。我们还强调了分别评估 PROM 中每个子量表的测量特性以及评估所有纳入的 PROM 的内容效度的重要性:结论:通过使用 COSMIN PROMs 系统性综述指南的更新版本,可以提高 PROMs 系统性综述的质量。质量的提高将有助于更好地选择 PROM 和提高 PROM 使用的标准化程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0.

Purpose: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

Methods: Adaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies.

Results: The updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs.

Conclusion: The quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Quality of life of women with a screen-detected versus clinically detected breast cancer in the Netherlands: a prospective cohort study Chinese utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument QLU-C10D The effect of social care nurses on health related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: A non-randomized, multicenter, controlled trial The impact of demographic change on value set validity and obsolescence The performance relationship between the EQ-5D-5L composite “Anxiety/Depression” dimension and anxiety and depression symptoms in a large, general population sample
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1