Systematic Reviews Of Measurement Properties Research Articles

Equilíbrio, quedas e risco de quedas na DPOC: revisão sistemática dos instrumentos de avaliação, propriedades de medida e utilidade clínica

Abstract Objectives to identify balance assessment instruments, issues and risks of issues used in COPD, evaluate their measurement properties, quality of evidence and clinical utility. Method A review was produced following the PRISMA and COSMIN guidelines, registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021235118. Searches were carried out from November 2021 to September 2022 in the PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science and PEDro databases. Cross-sectional and cohort observational studies were included, without restrictions on language or year of publication, as long as they described clinical instruments for assessing balance, falls and risk of falls reporting at least one of the measurement properties: validity, reliability and responsiveness. Two reviewers will independently apply the eligibility criteria, travel risk by COSMIN, quality of evidence by the GRADE approach and assessment of clinical utility by the Tyson and Connell Scale. Results 9,102 studies were selected and 21 included in the review, nine studies demonstrated adequate and sufficient measurement properties and 12 instruments were identified, of which six were evaluated for the quality of evidence. Conclusion Systematic reviews of measurement properties require specialized reviewers and skills in qualitative analysis. With a recommendation GRADE of “A”, the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test were the most recommended instruments for COPD. By requiring the evaluation of the clinical utility of the result, the TUG demonstrates superiority to the BBS, proving to be a great tool for judging individuals who need a thorough assessment of balance, falls and risk of falls.

Measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality-of-life measures in cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review protocol.

This review will identify and appraise existing evidence on the measurement properties of utility-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures used in cardiac rehabilitation programs. The review will map the measure domains against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures domains for cardiovascular disease. Improving HRQoL is an international key indicator for delivering high-quality and person-centered secondary prevention programs. Many instruments and measures assess HRQoL in individuals undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Utility-based measures are suitable for calculating quality-adjusted life years, a required outcome metric in cost-utility analysis. Cost-utility analysis requires the use of utility-based HRQoL measures. However, there is no consensus on which utility-based measure is best for populations undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Eligible studies will include patients aged ≥18 years with cardiovascular disease who are undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. Empirical studies that assess quality of life or HRQoL using a utility-based, health-related, patient-reported outcome measure or a measure accompanied by health state utilities will be eligible. Studies must report at least 1 of the following measurement properties: reliability, validity, responsiveness. This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of measurement properties. The following databases will be searched from inception to the present: MEDLINE, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection, Informit, PsyclNFO, REHABDATA, and the Cochrane Library. Studies will be critically appraised using the The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. The review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PROSPERO CRD42022349395.

Conducting Systematic Reviews of the Quality and Psychometric Properties of Health-Related Measurement Instruments: Finding the Right Tool for the Job

Many health-related measurement instruments have been developed to measure psychological constructs and whilst several instruments are usually available for a particular study, finding the right tool for the job is important. Systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments have long been identified as a valuable strategy to ensure that we select the right tool to assess mental health. There are many important steps and procedures to guide these types of systematic reviews to find the “best fit” and this paper summarizes some of these key processes and steps. The selection of instrument(s) to use should be made considering the most recent comprehensive review of the quality of the outcome measurement instrument based on unbiased assessment of its psychometric properties, responsiveness, and generalizability of results. Researchers planning to conduct a systematic review of health-related measurement instruments should design the review beforehand using standardized frameworks. Conducting systematic reviews of the quality and psychometric properties of health-related measurement instruments is important to ensure we choose the best tool for the research question and target population.

Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Positive Psychosocial Constructs in Children and Adolescent/Young Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.

Introduction: Children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer are a vulnerable population in whom improvements in psycho-oncology care would be valuable. We previously published a scoping review exploring what is known about positive psychological constructs in this population. A key finding was that evidence-based patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were needed to standardize psycho-oncology research. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of measurement properties focused on PROMs in the pediatric and adolescent/young adults (AYAs) with cancer populations. We searched for PROMs that measured at least 1 of 15 previously identified, key positive constructs. This systematic review followed COSMIN guidelines, considered the gold standard manual for systematic reviews of measurement properties. Results: We identified 20 (22 if proxy reports are counted separately) unique PROMs that met inclusion criteria. Of those, only five were recommended for use given the current evidence. The remainder may be used if no alternative exists. Only eight PROMs had any evidence of content validity, considered the most important psychometric property by COSMIN. Many studies were at risk of bias owing to incomplete or suboptimal methods. Discussion: Five PROMs are considered reliable for the pediatric and AYA with cancer populations. A number of PROMs require additional research to ensure their items and instructions are comprehensive, relevant, and comprehensible to children and AYAs. Given the overall lack of research, this review may be considered a starting point for the future refinement of a core set of PROMs to measure positive psychological constructs.

Measurement properties of all versions of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) 2.0: a systematic review protocol.

The aim of this review is to critically appraise and summarize the quality of the measurement properties of all versions of the Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SS-QOL) version 2.0. The Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale version 2.0 was developed as a comprehensive measure in assessing the quality of life of stroke survivors. The shortened version and cross-culturally translated versions are further developed in different countries. A systematic review will clarify the levels of reliability and validity of all versions. The population of interest for this review will include adult stroke survivors of either sex diagnosed with a stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) who have no other comorbidities affecting their quality of life. The SS-QOL version 2.0 will be the specific instrument of interest, and the quality of life of stroke survivors will be the construct of interest in this review. The measures of reliability, validity, and responsiveness will be assessed as outcomes. Only the studies evaluating the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of all versions of the SS-QOL 2.0 will be included in the review. A literature search will be conducted for published studies in MEDLINE and Embase, and unpublished data in Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. After a three-step search strategy, study selection will be done by two reviewers independently. Then, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology will be applied for assessment of methodological quality, data extraction, and synthesis. PROSPERO CRD42020211727.

Psychometric Properties of the EQ-5D for the Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in the Population of Middle-Old and Oldest-Old Persons: Study Protocol for a Systematic Review.

Introduction: Health care interventions for middle-old and oldest-old individuals (75 years or older) are often economically evaluated using the EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) to measure health-related quality of life. However, the psychometric performance of the EQ-5D in this population has been questioned, as it probably does not adequately capture relevant aspects of quality of life in the older population. Because the results of economic evaluations using the EQ-5D often guide decision-makers, it is important to know whether the EQ-5D has satisfactory psychometric properties in the middle-old and oldest-old population. Therefore, studies assessing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in this population should be synthesized by a systematic review.Methods and Analysis: A systematic review of studies providing empirical evidence of reliability, validity, and/or responsiveness of the EQ-5D in a sample with a mean age ≥75 years will be conducted. The databases PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit will be searched. In addition, reference lists of included studies will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will select studies and assess their risk of bias with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist. Relevant data will be extracted by one reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Potential disagreements in any phase will be resolved through discussion with a third person. The guidelines for systematic reviews of measurement properties proposed by the COSMIN group, including criteria of good measurement properties, will guide the synthesis and interpretation of the results.Discussion: The review's results could facilitate the making of recommendations for the use of the EQ-5D in a population of middle-old and oldest-old people and thereby being of interest for decision-makers or for researchers designing new intervention studies for older people. Heterogeneity of individual studies regarding the population under study could limit the possibility of making a synthesized statement on the appropriateness of the EQ-5D for the middle-old to oldest-old population.

Reliability, validity and relevance of needs assessment instruments for informal dementia caregivers: a psychometric systematic review.

ABSTRACTObjective:The objective of this review was to identify reliable and/or valid needs assessment instruments for informal dementia caregivers that are relevant for clinical practice, research and informal caregivers.Introduction:Informal dementia caregivers report important unmet needs at all stages of the disease. In addition, they often indicate that health care providers insufficiently attend and adapt to their multiple needs. A systematic and patient-centered assessment is needed to address this lack of knowledge and understanding. However, existing quantitative needs assessment questionnaires are limited in terms of psychometric testing. Qualitative measures are time-intensive and difficult to conduct on a large scale, with growing economic pressure. Information about the methodological quality and the characteristics of needs assessment instruments are crucial for clinicians and researchers to make informed decisions about the most reliable and valid tool for their specific purpose.Inclusion criteria:This review considered studies on multidimensional needs assessment instruments for informal dementia caregivers living at home. Psychometric studies or other types of studies with sufficient data to evaluate methodological quality were included if they considered at least one outcome for reliability or validity.Methods:Studies in English, French or German and published until February 2019 were searched in four databases: Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO. After screening the titles, abstracts or full texts for eligibility, the provisional included studies were assessed for methodological quality with a standardized tool for systematic reviews of measurement properties. After data extraction using a standardized tool, the quality of the measurement properties was rated and compared using predefined quality criteria.Results:Eighteen articles covering 14 different needs assessment instruments were included in the review. Eleven publications focused on the development or the evaluation of an instrument. In addition, a development report, a manual and five studies, not aimed primarily at validation but containing sufficient information about the development or the evaluation of the used instruments, were included. The systematic evaluation of the instruments revealed that half of them had excellent content validity. In contrast, structural validity was rarely examined, and mostly with an insufficient sample size or a questionable analysis. None of the instruments had optimally tested and good internal consistency. Regarding reliability, test-retest agreement was rarely tested and inter-rater agreement was evaluated using controversial procedures. Comparing the different instruments reviewed, the “Partnering for better health – living with chronic illness: dementia” had the best psychometric evidence, and the “Questionnaire of consultation expectations” was also partly supported, while most other instruments presently had limited psychometric soundness.Conclusions:Despite the good evidence for some psychometric properties, further developments in the field of needs assessment for informal dementia caregivers are needed, particularly regarding structural and construct validity, as well as test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change. To enhance conceptual clarity, the development of an underlying theoretical model of needs should be prioritized.

Holistic needs assessment in brain cancer patients: A systematic review of available tools.

This systematic review describes tools which could be considered for use for holistic needs assessment (HNA) in brain cancer. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO were searched. Studies were included which met the following criteria; primary research published in English which reported the development, psychometric testing or clinical utility testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the assessment of adult brain cancer patients' needs, problems or concerns or generic cancer needs assessment tools developed specifically on a brain cancer or brain tumour population. Nine articles describing four tools were identified. The tools were first assessed using the COSMIN protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties and then assessed for their quality and usefulness as a holistic needs assessment tool. None of the four tools had strong psychometric properties; however, the two symptom questionnaires had better psychometric properties but would need adapted to holistically assess the multiple domains of need. The two HNA tools had only minimal psychometric testing. The lack of a tool, which adequately meets all requirements for HNA, supports the need to further development of tools to optimise this intervention.

How to Select a Questionnaire with a Good Methodological Quality?

In the last decades, several instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of individuals. However, some instruments lack thorough methodological validation or present conceptual differences that hinder comparisons with instruments. Thus, it can be difficult to clinicians and researchers to select a questionnaire that accurately reflect what are really meaningful to individuals. This short communication aimed to discuss the importance of use an appropriate checklist to select an instrument with a good methodological quality. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to provide tools for evidence-based instrument selection. The COSMIN checklist comprises ten boxes that evaluate whether a study meets the standard for good methodological quality and two additional boxes to meet studies that use the Item Response Theory method and general requirements for results generalization, resulting in four steps to be followed. In this way, it is required at least some expertise in psychometrics or clinimetrics to a wide-ranging use of this checklist. The COSMIN applications include its use to ensure the standardization of cross-cultural adaptations and safer comparisons between measurement studies and evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews of measurement properties. Also, it can be used by students when training about measurement properties and by editors and reviewers when revising manuscripts on this topic. The popularization of COSMIN checklist is therefore necessary to improve the selection and evaluation of health measurement instruments.

Holistic Needs Assessment in Brain Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Available Tools

This systematic review describes tools which could be considered for use for holistic needs assessment (HNA) in brain cancer. MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO were searched. Studies were included which met the following criteria; primary research published in English which reported the development, psychometric testing or clinical utility testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the assessment of adult brain cancer patients' needs, problems or concerns or generic cancer needs assessment tools developed specifically on a brain cancer or brain tumour population. Nine articles describing four tools were identified. The tools were first assessed using the COSMIN protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties and then assessed for their quality and usefulness as a holistic needs assessment tool. None of the four tools had strong psychometric properties; however, the two symptom questionnaires had better psychometric properties but would need adapted to holistically assess the multiple domains of need. The two HNA tools had only minimal psychometric testing. The lack of a tool, which adequately meets all requirements for HNA, supports the need to further development of tools to optimise this intervention.

Systematic psychometric review of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care.

To give an overview of empirical studies using self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care and to synthesize psychometric properties of these instruments. A key condition for improving patient safety is creating a supportive safety culture to identify weaknesses and to develop improvement strategies so recurrence of incidents can be minimized. However, most tools to measure and strengthen safety culture have been developed and tested in hospitals. Nevertheless, primary care is facing greater risks and a greater likelihood of causing unintentional harm to patients. A systematic literature review of research evidence and psychometric properties of self-reported instruments to assess patient safety culture in primary care. Three databases until November 2016. The review was carried out according to the protocol for systematic reviews of measurement properties recommended by the COSMIN panel and the PRISMA reporting guidelines. In total, 1.229 records were retrieved from multiple database searches (Medline=865, Web of Science=362 and Embase=2). Resulting from an in-depth literature search, 14 published studies were identified, mostly originated from Western high-income countries. As these studies come with great diversity in tools used and outcomes reported, comparability of the results is compromised. Based on the psychometric review, the SCOPE-Primary Care survey was chosen as the most appropriate instrument to measure patient safety culture in primary care as the instrument had excellent internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.70-0.90 and itemfactor loadings ranging from 0.40-0.96, indicating a good structural validity. The findings of the present review suggest that the SCOPE-Primary Care survey is the most appropriate tool to assess patient safety culture in primary care. Further psychometric techniques are now essential to ensure that the instrument provides meaningful information regarding safety culture.

The measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings: a systematic review of measurement properties of instruments.

There is a growing call by consumers and governments for healthcare to adopt systems and approaches to care to improve patient safety. Collaboration within healthcare settings is an important factor for improving systems of care. By using validated measurement instruments a standardized approach to assessing collaboration is possible, otherwise it is only an assumption that collaboration is occurring in any healthcare setting. The objective of this review was to evaluate and compare measurement properties of instruments that measure collaboration within healthcare settings, specifically those which have been psychometrically tested and validated. Participants could be healthcare professionals, the patient or any non-professional who contributes to a patient's care, for example, family members, chaplains or orderlies. The term participant type means the designation of any one participant; for example 'nurse', 'social worker' or 'administrator'. More than two participant types was mandatory. The focus of this review was the validity of tools used to measure collaboration within healthcare settings. The types of studies considered for inclusion were validation studies, but quantitative study designs such as randomized controlled trials, controlled trials and case studies were also eligible for inclusion. Studies that focused on Interprofessional Education, were published as an abstract only, contained patient self-reporting only or were not about care delivery were excluded. The outcome of interest was validation and interpretability of the instrument being assessed and included content validity, construct validity and reliability. Interpretability is characterized by statistics such as mean and standard deviation which can be translated to a qualitative meaning. The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies. A three-step search strategy was utilized in this review. The databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Emerald Fulltext, MD Consult Australia, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Informit Health Databases, Scopus, UpToDate and Web of Science. The search for unpublished studies included EThOS (Electronic Thesis Online Service), Index to Theses and ProQuest- Dissertations and Theses. The assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was undertaken using the COSMIN checklist which is a validated tool that assesses the process of design and validation of healthcare measurement instruments. An Excel spreadsheet version of COSMIN was developed for data collection which included a worksheet for extracting participant characteristics and interpretability data. Statistical pooling of data was not possible for this review. Therefore, the findings are presented in a narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation. To make a synthesis of the assessments of methodological quality of the different studies, each instrument was rated by accounting for the number of studies performed with an instrument, the appraisal of methodological quality and the consistency of results between studies. Twenty-one studies of 12 instruments were included in the review. The studies were diverse in their theoretical underpinnings, target population/setting and measurement objectives. Measurement objectives included: investigating beliefs, behaviors, attitudes, perceptions and relationships associated with collaboration; measuring collaboration between different levels of care or within a multi-rater/target group; assessing collaboration across teams; or assessing internal participation of both teams and patients.Studies produced validity or interpretability data but none of the studies assessed all validity and reliability properties. However, most of the included studies produced a factor structure or referred to prior factor analysis. A narrative synthesis of the individual study factor structures was generated consisting of nine headings: organizational settings, support structures, purpose and goals; communication; reflection on process; cooperation; coordination; role interdependence and partnership; relationships; newly created professional activities; and professional flexibility. Among the many instruments that measure collaboration within healthcare settings, the quality of each instrument varies; instruments are designed for specific populations and purposes, and are validated in various settings. Selecting an instrument requires careful consideration of the qualities of each. Therefore, referring to systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments may be helpful to clinicians or researchers in instrument selection. Systematic reviews of measurement properties of instruments are valuable in aiding in instrument selection. This systematic review may be useful in instrument selection for the measurement of collaboration within healthcare settings with a complex mix of participant types. Evaluating collaboration provides important information on the strengths and limitations of different healthcare settings and the opportunities for continuous improvement via any remedial actions initiated. Development of a tool that can be used to measure collaboration within teams of healthcare professionals and non-professionals is important for practice. The use of different statistical modelling techniques, such as Item Response Theory modelling and the translation of models into Computer Adaptive Tests, may prove useful. Measurement equivalence is an important consideration for future instrument development and validation. Further development of the COSMIN tool should include appraisal for measurement equivalence. Researchers developing and validating measurement tools should consider multi-method research designs.

Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist

BackgroundThe COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5–18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties.MethodsThe scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box (“worst score counts”).ResultsSpecific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the “worst score counts” algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties.ConclusionsBased on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties.

Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments

ObjectivesFor the measurement of patient-reported outcomes, such as (health-related) quality of life, often many measurement instruments exist that intend to measure the same construct. To facilitate instrument selection, our aim was to develop a highly sensitive search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments in PubMed and a more precise search filter that needs less abstracts to be screened, but at a higher risk of missing relevant studies.MethodsA random sample of 10,000 PubMed records (01-01-1990 to 31-12-2006) was used as a gold standard. Studies on measurement properties were identified using an exclusion filter and hand searching. Search terms were selected from the relevant records in the gold standard as well as from 100 systematic reviews of measurement properties and combined based on sensitivity and precision. The performance of the filters was tested in the gold standard as well as in two validation sets, by calculating sensitivity, precision, specificity, and number needed to read.ResultsWe identified 116 studies on measurement properties in the gold standard. The sensitive search filter was able to retrieve 113 of these 116 studies (sensitivity 97.4%, precision 4.4%). The precise search filter had a sensitivity of 93.1% and a precision of 9.4%. Both filters performed very well in the validation sets.ConclusionThe use of these search filters will contribute to evidence-based selection of measurement instruments in all medical fields.

Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed.