Pawan Baral, Sheela Kumaran, Fiona Stapleton, Konrad Pesudovs
{"title":"一项评估眼表疾病患者报告结果测量质量的系统综述。","authors":"Pawan Baral, Sheela Kumaran, Fiona Stapleton, Konrad Pesudovs","doi":"10.1016/j.jtos.2024.11.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify and assess the quality of currently available validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure the quality of life (QoL) impacts of ocular surface diseases (OSDs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Articles reporting on the development, validation, and use of PROMs specific to ocular surface diseases were included for review. The studies were classified based on the target population for which they were developed. Data on content identification, selection, psychometric properties, validity, and reliability were extracted. These data were assessed using the established quality assessment criteria for ophthalmic PROMs. A review of the contents of the PROMs was also performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 67 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies used 34 unique PROMs including 16 dry eye specific PROMs, 4 contact lens specific PROMs, 1 meibomian gland dysfunction specific PROM, 1 blepharitis specific PROM, 5 Sjögren Syndrome specific PROMs, 4 generic PROMs, 1 computer vision specific PROM, 1 ocular pain specific PROM and 1 bone marrow transplant specific PROM used in ocular graft versus host disease. Testing of psychometric properties for validation was uncommon. Most of the reported data were limited to internal consistency, convergent, and known group validity. The majority (25 out of 34) of the PROMs did not involve patients for content development. Twenty-four PROMs measured symptoms only and the remaining 9 PROMs had items from other QoL domains.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review provides a current evaluation of extant PROMs for OSD. The assessment of PROMs displayed some strengths but highlighted numerous limitations. Not involving patients for the development of PROM, limited content, inadequately reported or poor psychometric properties, and issues with multidimensionality were the main limitations. Based on this we cannot recommend a single best PROM for measuring OSD-specific QoL. This review underscores the need for the development of a higher quality PROM and suggest directions for future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54691,"journal":{"name":"Ocular Surface","volume":"35 ","pages":"Pages 31-56"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review assessing the quality of patient reported outcome measures in ocular surface disease\",\"authors\":\"Pawan Baral, Sheela Kumaran, Fiona Stapleton, Konrad Pesudovs\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jtos.2024.11.011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To identify and assess the quality of currently available validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure the quality of life (QoL) impacts of ocular surface diseases (OSDs).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Articles reporting on the development, validation, and use of PROMs specific to ocular surface diseases were included for review. The studies were classified based on the target population for which they were developed. Data on content identification, selection, psychometric properties, validity, and reliability were extracted. These data were assessed using the established quality assessment criteria for ophthalmic PROMs. A review of the contents of the PROMs was also performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We identified 67 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies used 34 unique PROMs including 16 dry eye specific PROMs, 4 contact lens specific PROMs, 1 meibomian gland dysfunction specific PROM, 1 blepharitis specific PROM, 5 Sjögren Syndrome specific PROMs, 4 generic PROMs, 1 computer vision specific PROM, 1 ocular pain specific PROM and 1 bone marrow transplant specific PROM used in ocular graft versus host disease. Testing of psychometric properties for validation was uncommon. Most of the reported data were limited to internal consistency, convergent, and known group validity. The majority (25 out of 34) of the PROMs did not involve patients for content development. Twenty-four PROMs measured symptoms only and the remaining 9 PROMs had items from other QoL domains.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This review provides a current evaluation of extant PROMs for OSD. The assessment of PROMs displayed some strengths but highlighted numerous limitations. Not involving patients for the development of PROM, limited content, inadequately reported or poor psychometric properties, and issues with multidimensionality were the main limitations. Based on this we cannot recommend a single best PROM for measuring OSD-specific QoL. This review underscores the need for the development of a higher quality PROM and suggest directions for future research.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ocular Surface\",\"volume\":\"35 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 31-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ocular Surface\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542012424001356\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ocular Surface","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1542012424001356","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A systematic review assessing the quality of patient reported outcome measures in ocular surface disease
Objective
To identify and assess the quality of currently available validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure the quality of life (QoL) impacts of ocular surface diseases (OSDs).
Methods
A literature search was performed in the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Articles reporting on the development, validation, and use of PROMs specific to ocular surface diseases were included for review. The studies were classified based on the target population for which they were developed. Data on content identification, selection, psychometric properties, validity, and reliability were extracted. These data were assessed using the established quality assessment criteria for ophthalmic PROMs. A review of the contents of the PROMs was also performed.
Results
We identified 67 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These studies used 34 unique PROMs including 16 dry eye specific PROMs, 4 contact lens specific PROMs, 1 meibomian gland dysfunction specific PROM, 1 blepharitis specific PROM, 5 Sjögren Syndrome specific PROMs, 4 generic PROMs, 1 computer vision specific PROM, 1 ocular pain specific PROM and 1 bone marrow transplant specific PROM used in ocular graft versus host disease. Testing of psychometric properties for validation was uncommon. Most of the reported data were limited to internal consistency, convergent, and known group validity. The majority (25 out of 34) of the PROMs did not involve patients for content development. Twenty-four PROMs measured symptoms only and the remaining 9 PROMs had items from other QoL domains.
Conclusion
This review provides a current evaluation of extant PROMs for OSD. The assessment of PROMs displayed some strengths but highlighted numerous limitations. Not involving patients for the development of PROM, limited content, inadequately reported or poor psychometric properties, and issues with multidimensionality were the main limitations. Based on this we cannot recommend a single best PROM for measuring OSD-specific QoL. This review underscores the need for the development of a higher quality PROM and suggest directions for future research.
期刊介绍：
The Ocular Surface, a quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal, is an authoritative resource that integrates and interprets major findings in diverse fields related to the ocular surface, including ophthalmology, optometry, genetics, molecular biology, pharmacology, immunology, infectious disease, and epidemiology. Its critical review articles cover the most current knowledge on medical and surgical management of ocular surface pathology, new understandings of ocular surface physiology, the meaning of recent discoveries on how the ocular surface responds to injury and disease, and updates on drug and device development. The journal also publishes select original research reports and articles describing cutting-edge techniques and technology in the field.
Benefits to authors
We also provide many author benefits, such as free PDFs, a liberal copyright policy, special discounts on Elsevier publications and much more. Please click here for more information on our author services.
Please see our Guide for Authors for information on article submission. If you require any further information or help, please visit our Support Center
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
