ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of 12 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression. Depression symptom severity was chosen as the outcome of focus given its importance as an outcome to measure in adolescents with depression across clinical trials and/or care. METHOD: MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from year of inception up to December 7, 2023. Study appraisal (ie, risk of bias), evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Included studies evaluated at least 1 of 9 measurement properties as detailed in the COSMIN taxonomy within a reported sample or subgroup of youth ages 12 to 24 years, with at least 40% meeting criteria for any depressive disorder. RESULTS: Of the 15,560 records identified, 31 studies for 7 PROMs were included in the COSMIN appraisal. Although several PROMs have the potential to accurately measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression, at this time none of the PROMs can be recommended for use without further evaluative work. High-quality evidence was generally lacking, largely due to few or inconsistent findings, small sample sizes, and other methodological concerns. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of the measurement properties of 12 PROMs used to measure depression symptom severity in adolescents with depression found that none of the PROMs can be recommended for use until further evaluative work is conducted. Clinicians and researchers should proceed with caution when using these PROMs. DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION STATEMENT: One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science. One or more of the authors of this paper self-identifies as a member of one or more historically underrepresented sexual and/or gender groups in science. We actively worked to promote sex and gender balance in our author group. We actively worked to promote inclusion of historically underrepresented racial and/or ethnic groups in science in our author group. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) indicates cardiometabolic risk (CMR), a key driver of cardiovascular disease. Early detection and treatment of CMR are important to decrease this risk. To facilitate the identification of individuals at risk, CMRFs are commonly combined into a CMR Score. This scoping review aims to identify CMRFs and methods used to calculate adolescent CMR Scores. DATA SYNTHESIS: Systematic searches were executed in Child Development and Adolescent Studies, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus Elsevier, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Nursing and Allied Health. No limits were placed on publication date or geographic location. Studies were included if participants were 10-19 years and the study reported CMRFs in a composite score. Key extracted information included participant characteristics, CMRFs comprising the scores, and methods of score calculation. CMRFs were categorized and data were reported as frequencies. This study identified 170 studies representing 189 CMR Scores. The most common CMRF categories were related to lipids, blood pressure, and adiposity. The most frequent CMRFs were triglyceride z-score, systolic blood pressure z-score, and inverse high-density lipoproteins z-score. Scores were mostly calculated by summing CMRF z-scores without weighting. CONCLUSIONS: The range of CMRFs and Scores identified in adolescent CMR literature limits their use and interpretation. Published CMR Scores commonly contain two main limitations: (a) use of an internal cohort as the z-score reference population, and (b) Scores relying on adiposity measures. We highlight the need for a standard set of CMRFs and a consensus for a CMR Score for adolescents.