RESUMO
This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis and in-depth analysis of the quality of the different cross-cultural versions of the MHQ. This study was conducted using Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases to identify cross-cultural validation studies of the MHQ. Methodological quality, quality of evidence and criteria for good measurement properties of these studies were applied for each psychometric property. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers according to the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A total of 493 articles were identified, of which 22 were included and 20 were analysed.Of the six properties analysed, responsiveness and hypothesis testing for construct validity had the highest methodological quality and quality of evidence, and met the criteria for good measurement properties. The lowest quality properties were measurement error and internal consistency. The different cross-cultural versions of the MHQ were found to be reliable, valid and able to detect clinical change. The lack of development of measurement error, formulation of an a priori hypothesis or structural validity affects the detection of small clinical changes and their discriminative capacity.