Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings. RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Quality indicators for appropriate in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship: An international modified Delphi study.

AIMS: In-hospital prescribing errors may result in patient harm, such as prolonged hospitalisation and hospital (re)admission, and may be an emotional burden for the prescribers and healthcare professionals involved. Despite efforts, in-hospital prescribing errors and related harm still occur, necessitating an innovative approach. We therefore propose a novel approach, in-hospital pharmacotherapeutic stewardship (IPS). The aim of this study was to reach consensus on a set of quality indicators (QIs) as a basis for IPS. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi procedure was performed. Potential QIs were retrieved from two systematic searches of the literature, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In two written questionnaires and a focus meeting (held between the written questionnaire rounds), potential QIs were appraised by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel composed of members of the European Association for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics (EACPT). RESULTS: The expert panel rated 59 QIs and four general statements, of which 35 QIs were accepted with consensus rates ranging between 79% and 97%. These QIs describe the activities of an IPS programme, the team delivering IPS, the patients eligible for the programme and the outcome measures that should be used to evaluate the care delivered. CONCLUSIONS: A framework of 35 QIs for an IPS programme was systematically developed. These QIs can guide hospitals in setting up a pharmacotherapeutic stewardship programme to reduce in-hospital prescribing errors and improve in-hospital medication safety.

Measurement properties of performance-based instruments for assessing mental function during activity and participation in persons with stroke: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Various performance-based instruments exist to assess mental function after stroke and users have to select one for research or clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess (any aspect of) mental function during activity and participation in persons after stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched in five electronic databases. COSMIN methodology was used to conduct the review. The strength of evidence was assessed using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fifty articles were included reporting on 20 instruments assessing (1) multiple mental functions including ≥ four subdomains (2) attention, memory and executive functions, or single subdomains (3) executive functions, (4) perception, and (5) mental function of language. Highest quality evidence for sufficient results was found for some measurement properties in seven instruments. These instruments included: FIM + FAM, MPAI-4 and EFPT, MET, CBS/KF-NAP, BIT and the Scenario Test. CONCLUSIONS: Further studies of high methodological quality are needed that evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to allow clinicians and researchers to select the most suitable performance-based measures for purpose. SIGNIFICANCE: Results may be used to select the most suitable performance-based instrument to measure mental function during activity and participation in persons with stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018086744.

Reliability of brain atrophy measurements in multiple sclerosis using MRI: an assessment of six freely available software packages for cross-sectional analyses.

PURPOSE: Volume measurement using MRI is important to assess brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, differences between scanners, acquisition protocols, and analysis software introduce unwanted variability of volumes. To quantify theses effects, we compared within-scanner repeatability and between-scanner reproducibility of three different MR scanners for six brain segmentation methods. METHODS: Twenty-one people with MS underwent scanning and rescanning on three 3 T MR scanners (GE MR750, Philips Ingenuity, Toshiba Vantage Titan) to obtain 3D T1-weighted images. FreeSurfer, FSL, SAMSEG, FastSurfer, CAT-12, and SynthSeg were used to quantify brain, white matter and (deep) gray matter volumes both from lesion-filled and non-lesion-filled 3D T1-weighted images. We used intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) to quantify agreement; repeated-measures ANOVA to analyze systematic differences; and variance component analysis to quantify the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC). RESULTS: For all six software, both between-scanner agreement (ICCs ranging 0.4-1) and within-scanner agreement (ICC range: 0.6-1) were typically good, and good to excellent (ICC > 0.7) for large structures. No clear differences were found between filled and non-filled images. However, gray and white matter volumes did differ systematically between scanners for all software (p < 0.05). Variance component analysis yielded within-scanner SDC ranging from 1.02% (SAMSEG, whole-brain) to 14.55% (FreeSurfer, CSF); and between-scanner SDC ranging from 4.83% (SynthSeg, thalamus) to 29.25% (CAT12, thalamus). CONCLUSION: Volume measurements of brain, GM and WM showed high repeatability, and high reproducibility despite substantial differences between scanners. Smallest detectable change was high, especially between different scanners, which hampers the clinical implementation of atrophy measurements.

Interobserver variability studies in diagnostic imaging: a methodological systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the methodology of interobserver variability studies; including current practice and quality of conducting and reporting studies. METHODS: Interobserver variability studies between January 2019 and January 2020 were included; extracted data comprised of study characteristics, populations, variability measures, key results, and conclusions. Risk of bias was assessed using the COSMIN tool for assessing reliability and measurement error. RESULTS: Seventy-nine full-text studies were included covering various imaging tests and clinical areas. The median number of patients was 47 (IQR:23-88), and observers were 4 (IQR:2-7), with sample size justified in 12 (15%) studies. Most studies used static images (n = 75, 95%), where all observers interpreted images for all patients (n = 67, 85%). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) (n = 41, 52%), Kappa (κ) statistics (n = 31, 39%) and percentage agreement (n = 15, 19%) were most commonly used. Interpretation of variability estimates often did not correspond with study conclusions. The COSMIN risk of bias tool gave a very good/adequate rating for 52 studies (66%) including any studies that used variability measures listed in the tool. For studies using static images, some study design standards were not applicable and did not contribute to the overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver variability studies have diverse study designs and methods, the impact of which requires further evaluation. Sample size for patients and observers was often small without justification. Most studies report ICC and κ values, which did not always coincide with the study conclusion. High ratings were assigned to many studies using the COSMIN risk of bias tool, with certain standards scored 'not applicable' when static images were used. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The sample size for both patients and observers was often small without justification. For most studies, observers interpreted static images and did not evaluate the process of acquiring the imaging test, meaning it was not possible to assess many COSMIN risk of bias standards for studies with this design. Most studies reported intraclass correlation coefficient and κ statistics; study conclusions often did not correspond with results.

Studies on Reliability and Measurement Error of Measurements in Medicine - From Design to Statistics Explained for Medical Researchers.

Reliability and measurement error are measurement properties that quantify the influence of specific sources of variation, such as raters, type of machine, or time, on the score of the individual measurement. Several designs can be chosen to assess reliability and measurement error of a measurement. Differences in design are due to specific choices about which sources of variation are varied over the repeated measurements in stable patients, which potential sources of variation are kept stable (ie, restricted), and about whether or not the entire measurement instrument (or measurement protocol) was repeated or only part of it. We explain how these choices determine how intraclass correlation coefficients and standard errors of measurement formulas are built for different designs by using Venn diagrams. Strategies for improving the measurement are explained, and recommendations for reporting the essentials of these studies are described. We hope that this paper will facilitate the understanding and improve the design, analysis, and reporting of future studies on reliability and measurement error of measurements.

Reliability of two lumbar motor control tests for people with low back pain that are feasible in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Clinically feasible and reliable methods to measure motor control in people with low back pain (LBP) are lacking. This reliability and measurement error study design (i.e. repeated measurements in stable patients) aimed to determine the intra- and interrater reliability, and measurement errors of several parameters for two clinical lumbar motor control tests. METHOD: Participants 18-65 years of age, with current or a history of LBP performed a spiral tracking task (n = 33; i.e., tracing a spiral on a computer monitor by making spinal movements) or a repositioning task (n = 34; i.e., returning the trunk to a predefined position). Accelerometers were used to measure trunk positions. To explore the potential of these tests, we evaluated a broad range of parameters. To assess intra- and interrater reliability, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1) for absolute agreement), standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change for each parameter. FINDINGS: Overall, the interrater reliability of the spiral tracking test was good (ICC>0.75). The reliability of the second and third trial revealed higher ICC values compared to the reliability of the first two trials. The intra- and interrater reliability of the repositioning test was overall poor (ICC <0.5, with the exception of trunk inclination: ICC: 0.5 to 0.75). CONCLUSION: The reliability and set-up of the spiral tracking test supports its feasibility for clinical use. Considering the poor reliability of the repositioning test, it is doubtful whether further development of this measurement protocol is indicated. Only for the direction trunk inclination further standardisation might be warranted.

Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for shared decision making and research. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires used to measure PROs, such as health-related quality of life (HRQL). Although core outcome sets for trials and clinical practice have been developed separately, they, as well as other initiatives, recommend different PROs and PROMs. In research and clinical practice, different PROMs are used (some generic, some disease-specific), which measure many different things. This is a threat to the validity of research and clinical findings in the field of diabetes. In this narrative review, we aim to provide recommendations for the selection of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs for people with diabetes for use in clinical practice and research. Based on a general conceptual framework of PROs, we suggest that relevant PROs to measure in people with diabetes are: disease-specific symptoms (e.g. worries about hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress), general symptoms (e.g. fatigue and depression), functional status, general health perceptions and overall quality of life. Generic PROMs such as the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0), or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures could be considered to measure commonly relevant PROs, supplemented with disease-specific PROMs where needed. However, none of the existing diabetes-specific PROM scales has been sufficiently validated, although the Diabetes Symptom Self-Care Inventory (DSSCI) for measuring diabetes-specific symptoms and the Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) and Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) for measuring distress showed sufficient content validity. Standardisation and use of relevant PROs and psychometrically sound PROMs can help inform people with diabetes about the expected course of disease and treatment, for shared decision making, to monitor outcomes and to improve healthcare. We recommend further validation studies of diabetes-specific PROMs that have sufficient content validity for measuring disease-specific symptoms and consider generic item banks developed based on item response theory for measuring commonly relevant PROs.

Study Preregistration: Measuring What Matters: Development and Dissemination of a Core Outcome Set for Pediatric Anxiety Disorders Clinical Trials.

Pediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent disorders with an impact on all aspects of a child's life and functioning.1 Although evidence supports commonly used treatments, there are notable concerns with the research to date.2 Heterogeneity in outcome selection, measurement, analysis, and reporting is a contributing factor to the hinderance of the translation of research into clinical practice.3 Recognition for outcome standardization in pediatric mental health disorders is evolving and there are several initiatives of importance, including the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), which has developed standardized outcome sets for use in the routine clinical mental health treatment of children and adolescents.4 Similarly, the International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders5 advocate for use of 1 specific outcome measurement instrument (OMI) in the youth mental health research that they fund. Development of a Core Outcome Set (COS), a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in clinical trials, has been a solution in other areas of medicine to address heterogeneity in outcome selection and measurement across trials.6 The Core Outcomes and Measures in Pediatric Anxiety Clinical Trials (COMPACT) Initiative will develop a harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based COS that is meaningful to youth and families for use in future trials in pediatric AD.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Key Sub-Saharan African Languages to Promote Diversity: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Sub-Saharan Africa is a world region rich and diverse in cultures and languages; yet, it is also challenged with regard to resources that may facilitate the cultural adaptation or development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Systematic exclusion of patients' "voices," because of gaps in the availability of PROMs, may perpetuate health inequity. Hence, the objective is to describe the availability of PROMs in the non-English, sub-Saharan African languages. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify PROMs that had been translated, validated, or developed for use in 32 selected, non-English, sub-Saharan African languages pertaining to health outcomes. Four databases were searched (May 7, 2021), and additional articles were identified through reference screening and via corresponding authors. Data were extracted in terms of country, language, population, construct, and PROM characteristics (eg, number of items). RESULTS: A total of 220 unique articles were included from 7451 records, leading to the identification of 126 unique PROMs. Most studies were conducted in either Ethiopia, Nigeria, or South Africa. As such, prevalent languages included Amharic, Yoruba, and non-English languages common to South Africa (eg, Setswana, Xhosa, and Zulu). No PROMs were identified in any of the languages for 27 sub-Saharan African countries or 10 of the 32 included languages. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps in the availability of PROMs across the non-English African languages included. Nevertheless, the PROMs that were identified largely align with core outcome sets relevant to the prevalent disease burden in this world region. Consensus-based priority setting may inform the most pertinent gaps to be addressed.

Measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess mental function during activity and participation in persons who have survived a stroke: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A frequent consequence of stroke is impaired mental function, which often affects the ability to perform activities and participate in life situation. In occupational therapy practice, performance-based instruments during activity and participation are often used. However, it is important to assess if the instruments used are valid, reliable and responsive. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to investigate measurement properties of performance-based instruments to assess mental function during activity and participation in persons who have survived stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic database searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and OTseeker will be conducted. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used to evaluate methodological quality of the included articles. Measurement properties of the included studies will be rated against criteria for good measurement properties. The overall evidence of each measurement property per instrument is graded using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Results will be presented in text and tables. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusion will be drawn up-on the overall evidence to give recommendations on the most suitable instrument. SIGNIFICANCE: It is expected that findings of the review will provide evidence to guide professionals in the selection of a performance-based instruments to measure mental function in practice and research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018086744.

A Scoping Review on Outcomes and Outcome Measurement Instruments in Rehabilitative Interventions for Patients with Haematological Malignancies Treated with Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation.

RATIONALE: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is associated with increased treatment-related mortality, loss of physical vitality, and impaired quality of life. Future research will investigate the effects of multidisciplinary rehabilitative interventions in alleviating these problems. Nevertheless, published studies in this field show considerable heterogeneity in selected outcomes and the outcome measurement instruments used. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the outcomes and outcome measurement instruments used in studies examining the effects of rehabilitative interventions for patients treated with allogeneic HSCT. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review that included randomized controlled trials, pilot studies, and feasibility studies published up to 28 February 2022. RESULTS: We included n = 39 studies, in which n = 84 different outcomes were used 227 times and n = 125 different instruments were used for the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Research in the field of rehabilitation for patients with haematological malignancies treated with allogeneic HSCT is hampered by the excess outcomes used, the inconsistent outcome terminology, and the inconsistent use of measurement instruments in terms of setting and timing. Researchers in this field should reach a consensus with regard to the use of a common terminology for the outcomes of interest and a homogeneity when selecting measurement instruments and measurement timing methods.

Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Developed for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aimed to systematically evaluate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) specifically developed to measure (aspects of) health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people with type 2 diabetes. A systematic review was performed in PubMed and Embase of PROMs measuring perceived symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, and that were validated to at least some extent. Content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) was evaluated using COSMIN methodology. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 54 (different versions of) PROMs, containing 150 subscales. We found evidence for sufficient content validity for only 41/150 (27%) (subscales of) PROMs. The quality of evidence was generally very low. We found 66 out of 150 (44%) (subscales of) PROMs with evidence for either insufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, or insufficient comprehensibility. For measuring diabetes-specific symptoms, physical function, mental function, social function/participation, and general health perceptions, we identified one to 11 (subscales of) PROMs with sufficient content validity, although quality of the evidence was generally low. For measuring depressive symptoms, no PROM with sufficient content validity was identified. For each aspect of HRQL, we found at least one PROM with sufficient content validity, except for depressive symptoms. The quality of the evidence was mostly very low.

Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes.

We aimed to systematically assess the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning, one of the core outcomes, in adults with type 2 diabetes.We performed a systematic literature search for PROMs or subscales measuring physical function that were validated to at least some extent in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Measurement properties were evaluated according to the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.In total 21 articles were included, describing 12 versions of 7 unique diabetes-specific PROMs or subscales measuring physical functioning. In general, there were few high-quality studies on measurement properties of PROMs measuring physical functioning in adults with type 2 diabetes. The Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF) and the Impact of Weight on Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (IWADL) were most extensively evaluated. Both had sufficient ratings for aspects of content validity, although with mostly very low-quality evidence. Sufficient ratings for structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability were also found for both instruments, but responsiveness was rated inconsistent for both instruments. The other PROMs or subscales often had insufficient aspects of content validity, or their unidimensionality could not be confirmed.This systematic review showed that the Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the DFS-SF and the IWADL could be used to measure physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes in research or clinical practice, while keeping the limitations of these instruments in mind. The measurement properties that have not been evaluated extensively for these PROMs should be evaluated in future studies.The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database, number CRD42021234890.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline. METHODS: The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process. DISCUSSION: The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.