Systematic Review: Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Measure Depression Symptom Severity in Adolescents With Depression.

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 7th, 2023. Study appraisal (i.e., 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 one of nine measurement properties as detailed in the COSMIN taxonomy within a reported sample or subgroup of youth 12-24 years, with at least 40% meeting criteria for any depressive disorder. RESULTS: Of the 15,560 records identified, 31 studies for seven 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.

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.

A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, projects to develop reporting guidelines have attempted to integrate the perspectives of patients and public members. Best practices for patient and public involvement (PPI) in such projects have not yet been established. We recently developed an extension of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), to be used for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) for OMIs 2024. Patients and public members formed a small but impactful stakeholder group. We critically evaluated the PPI component in this project and developed recommendations for conducting PPI when developing reporting guidelines. MAIN TEXT: A patient partner was an integral research team member at the project development and grant application stage. Once the project started, five patient and public contributors (PPCs) were recruited to participate in the Delphi study; three PPCs contributed to subsequent steps. We collected quantitative feedback through surveys; qualitative feedback was garnered through a focus group discussion after the Delphi study and through debrief meetings after subsequent project activities. Feedback was thematically combined with reflections from the research team, and was predominantly positive. The following themes emerged: importance of PPI partnership, number of PPCs involved, onboarding, design of Delphi surveys, flexibility in the process, complexity of PPI in methodological research, and power imbalances. Impacts of PPI on the content and presentation of the reporting guideline were evident, and reciprocal learning between PPCs and the research team occurred throughout the project. Lessons learned were translated into 17 recommendations for future projects. CONCLUSION: Integrating PPI in the development of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 was feasible and considered valuable by PPCs and the research team. Our approach can be applied by others wishing to integrate PPI in developing reporting guidelines.

Source-based morphometry reveals structural brain pattern abnormalities in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) is the most frequently occurring microdeletion in humans. It is associated with a significant impact on brain structure, including prominent reductions in gray matter volume (GMV), and neuropsychiatric manifestations, including cognitive impairment and psychosis. It is unclear whether GMV alterations in 22q11DS occur according to distinct structural patterns. Then, 783 participants (470 with 22q11DS: 51% females, mean age [SD] 18.2 [9.2]; and 313 typically developing [TD] controls: 46% females, mean age 18.0 [8.6]) from 13 datasets were included in the present study. We segmented structural T1-weighted brain MRI scans and extracted GMV images, which were then utilized in a novel source-based morphometry (SBM) pipeline (SS-Detect) to generate structural brain patterns (SBPs) that capture co-varying GMV. We investigated the impact of the 22q11.2 deletion, deletion size, intelligence quotient, and psychosis on the SBPs. Seventeen GMV-SBPs were derived, which provided spatial patterns of GMV covariance associated with a quantitative metric (i.e., loading score) for analysis. Patterns of topographically widespread differences in GMV covariance, including the cerebellum, discriminated individuals with 22q11DS from healthy controls. The spatial extents of the SBPs that revealed disparities between individuals with 22q11DS and controls were consistent with the findings of the univariate voxel-based morphometry analysis. Larger deletion size was associated with significantly lower GMV in frontal and occipital SBPs; however, history of psychosis did not show a strong relationship with these covariance patterns. 22q11DS is associated with distinct structural abnormalities captured by topographical GMV covariance patterns that include the cerebellum. Findings indicate that structural anomalies in 22q11DS manifest in a nonrandom manner and in distinct covarying anatomical patterns, rather than a diffuse global process. These SBP abnormalities converge with previously reported cortical surface area abnormalities, suggesting disturbances of early neurodevelopment as the most likely underlying mechanism.

Assessing the quality and value of metabolic chart data for capturing core outcomes for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Generating rigorous evidence to inform care for rare diseases requires reliable, sustainable, and longitudinal measurement of priority outcomes. Having developed a core outcome set for pediatric medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency, we aimed to assess the feasibility of prospective measurement of these core outcomes during routine metabolic clinic visits. METHODS: We used existing cohort data abstracted from charts of 124 children diagnosed with MCAD deficiency who participated in a Canadian study which collected data from birth to a maximum of 11 years of age to investigate the frequency of clinic visits and quality of metabolic chart data for selected outcomes. We recorded all opportunities to collect outcomes from the medical chart as a function of visit rate to the metabolic clinic, by treatment centre and by child age. We applied a data quality framework to evaluate data based on completeness, conformance, and plausibility for four core MCAD outcomes: emergency department use, fasting time, metabolic decompensation, and death. RESULTS: The frequency of metabolic clinic visits decreased with increasing age, from a rate of 2.8 visits per child per year (95% confidence interval, 2.3-3.3) among infants 2 to 6 months, to 1.0 visit per child per year (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.2) among those ≥ 5 years of age. Rates of emergency department visits followed anticipated trends by child age. Supplemental findings suggested that some emergency visits occur outside of the metabolic care treatment centre but are not captured. Recommended fasting times were updated relatively infrequently in patients' metabolic charts. Episodes of metabolic decompensation were identifiable but required an operational definition based on acute manifestations most commonly recorded in the metabolic chart. Deaths occurred rarely in these patients and quality of mortality data was not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to record core outcomes at the metabolic clinic occur at least annually for children with MCAD deficiency. Methods to comprehensively capture emergency care received at outside institutions are needed. To reduce substantial heterogeneous recording of core outcome across treatment centres, improved documentation standards are required for recording of recommended fasting times and a consensus definition for metabolic decompensations needs to be developed and implemented.

Development of an international core outcome set for treatment trials in paediatric inguinal hernia: protocol for a three-phase study including a systematic review and Delphi survey.

INTRODUCTION: In children, open inguinal hernia repair has been the gold standard for treatment, but with recent technical advancements in laparoscopy, laparoscopic hernia repair is gaining popularity. Despite available results from comparative studies, there is still no consensus regarding the superiority of open versus laparoscopic treatment strategy. An important reason for lack of consensus is the large heterogeneity in the trials' reported outcomes and outcome definitions, which limits comparisons between studies and precludes conclusions regarding the superiority of treatment strategies. The development and implementation of a core outcome set (COS) is a solution for this heterogeneity in the selection, measurement and reporting of trial outcome measures across studies. Currently, there is no COS for the treatment of paediatric inguinal hernia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this project is to reach international consensus on a minimal set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials investigating inguinal hernia repair in children. The development process comprises three phases. First, we identify outcome domains associated with paediatric inguinal hernia repair from a patient perspective and through a systematic review of the literature using EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Second, we conduct a three-step Delphi study to identify and prioritise 'core' outcomes for the eventual minimal set. In the third phase, an expert meeting is held to establish the final COS and develop implementation strategies with participants from all stakeholder groups: healthcare professionals, parents and patients' representatives. The final COS will be reported in accordance with the COS-Standards for Reporting statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The medical research ethics committee of the Amsterdam UMC confirmed that the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) does not apply to this study and that full approval by the committee is not required. Electronic informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed academic journals and at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021281422.

Systematic Review: The Measurement Properties of the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire and Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Jr.

OBJECTIVE: The Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) and the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior (SIQ-Jr) were designed to capture suicidal ideation in adolescents and are often used in clinical trials. Our aim was to identify and appraise the published literature with respect to the validity, reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify, appraise, and synthesize published literature on measurement properties and interpretability of the SIQ and SIQ-Jr. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to May 16, 2023, to identify sources relevant to our aim. RESULTS: We identified 15 sources meeting our eligibility criteria. The body of literature did not meet COSMIN standards to make recommendations for use with regard to these measurement instruments. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed, with a focus on content validity and structural validity, prior to recommending the SIQ and SIQ-Jr for use in clinical practice and in clinical trials. No specific grant funding was used for this review.