Twenty-five years of experience with patient-reported outcome measures in soft-tissue sarcoma patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: As the importance of the patient's perspective on treatment outcome is becoming increasingly clear, the availability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has grown accordingly. There remains insufficient information regarding the quality of PROMs in patients with soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs). The objectives of this systematic review were (1) to identify all PROMs used in STS patients and (2) to critically appraise the methodological quality of these PROMs. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in MEDLINE and Embase on April 22, 2024. PROMs were identified by including all studies that evaluate (an aspect of) health-related quality of life in STS patients by using a PROM. Second, studies that assessed measurement properties of the PROMs utilized in STS patients were included. Quality of PROMs was evaluated by performing a COSMIN analysis. RESULTS: In 59 studies, 39 PROMs were identified, with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) being the most frequently utilized. Three studies evaluated methodological quality of PROMs in the STS population. Measurement properties of the TESS, Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) and European Organization for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30) were reported. None of the PROMs utilized in the STS population can be recommended for use based on the current evidence and COSMIN analysis. CONCLUSION: To ensure collection of reliable outcomes, PROMs require methodological evaluation prior to utilization in the STS population. Research should prioritize on determining relevant content and subsequently selecting the most suitable PROM for assessment.

Patient-reported outcome measures for acute rhinosinusitis in adults and children: a systematic review of the quality of existing instruments.

BACKGROUND: Acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) is a self-limiting inflammation of the nose and sinuses caused by viral or bacterial infections that requires primarily symptomatic treatment. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are suitable tools for the assessment of the effectiveness of remedies for ARS from the patient's perspective in clinical trials and real-world studies. Data regarding the quality of existing PROMs for ARS are limited. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the quality of existing disease-specific PROMs for use in adults and children with ARS according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, and to derive recommendations for use of the identified instruments in future clinical studies. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of PROMs for ARS. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments. RESULTS: We identified four studies on three PROMs measuring symptoms of ARS and quality of life in adults (Sinonasal Outcome Test-16, SNOT-16; Measurement of Acute Rhinosinusitis, MARS; Rhinosinusitis Quality-of-Life Assessment, RhinoQoL). For ARS in children, we identified two studies on two PROMs measuring symptoms of ARS (Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale, PRSS; Sinus Symptom Questionnaire, S5). Our assessment of measurement properties indicates that all instruments require further validation before they can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research (COSMIN category B). In particular, there were no content validity studies for any of the identified instruments, but also data on other important measurement properties, e.g., structural validity, are lacking. CONCLUSION: Currently, no PROM for ARS in adults and children can be unrestrictedly recommended based on the evaluation of their quality. Further validation is required for all identified PROMs. Content validation involving patients and experts should be given priority. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VAP8U ).

Measurement properties of the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since its creation, the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) has been used worldwide in mental health literacy studies. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically evaluate, summarize, and compare the measurement properties of MHLS validation studies. METHODS: PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from May 30, 2015, to December 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed studies validating the MHLS and its measurement properties were included, irrespective of language, study population, and setting. Studies using the MHLS as an outcome measure, as a comparative instrument to validate another instrument, or using other MHL measures and grey literature was excluded. RESULTS: Of the 685 search results, 16 studies were deemed eligible. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB criteria showed 15/15 studies exhibited 'Very Good' or 'Adequate' internal consistency, 3/6 reliability, 1/8 content validity, 14/14 structural validity, 6/7 hypothesis testing for convergent validity, 2/7 hypothesis testing for known-group validity, and 0/1 error measurement. The Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.720 to 0.890, and the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.741 to 0.99, while content validity was limited regarding the quality of evidence rating. The four-factor and unidimensional structures were 35.7 % and 28.6 %, respectively, the most common models. CONCLUSION: The MHLS exhibited strong evidence of construct validity and reliability, ensuring consistent and accurate evaluation of MHL and improving research credibility and generalizability. However, the low number of identical language versions of MHLS studies prohibited statistical pooling and quantitative summaries.

Patient-reported outcome measures for medication treatment satisfaction: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.

BACKGROUND: Medication Treatment Satisfaction (M-TS) from the patients' perspective is important for comprehensively evaluating the effect of medicines. The extent to which current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for M-TS are valid, reliable, responsive, and interpretable remains unclear. To assess the measurement properties of existing PROMs for M-TS and to highlight research gaps. METHODS: Using PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane library (Ovid), IPA (Ovid), PsycINFO, Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Questionnaires biomedical databases, and four Chinese databases, we performed a systematic search for studies addressing the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS. Based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, pairs of reviewers independently assessed the measurement properties of the PROMs and rated the quality of evidence on the measurement properties of each PROM. (The Open Science Framework registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8S5ZM ). RESULTS: This review identified 69 PROMs for M-TS in 114 studies (four generic, 32 disease-specific, and 33 drug-specific) of which 60 were intended for adults. All provided limited or no information regarding interpretability. Most demonstrated appropriate construct validity including convergent validity (39/69) and discriminative or known-groups validity (40/69) (high to moderate quality of evidence). Only a few provided evidence of sufficient content validity (8/69), structural validity (13/69), and internal consistency (11/69). Of 38 PROMs reporting test-retest reliability, results in 24 provided evidence of satisfactory test-retest reliability (18 with high to moderate, 6 with low to very low quality of evidence). Few PROMs reported responsiveness (16/69). Two generic PROMs (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication initial Version 1.4, TSQM-1.4; Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire, SATMED-Q) and one drug-specific PROM (Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, ITSQ) demonstrated both satisfactory validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Most existing PROMs for M-TS require further exploration of measurement properties. Reporting guidelines are needed to enhance the reporting quality of the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS.

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 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.

Development of the occupational stress scale for small and medium-sized enterprise owners for stress prevention measures.

Small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners are at an increased risk of mental disorders in addition to stress directly related to their business performance. However, steps to protect SME owners' mental health are lacking, and no occupational stress scale has been developed to accurately understand the real-world situation. Based on a nationwide internet survey of 1,000 Japanese SME owners aged 20-79 years with five or more employees, we developed a novel occupational stress scale for SME owners. The 43-item scale assesses job stress factors and modifying factors (individual, non-work, and buffering factors). The validity and reliability of the scale were verified. The job stress factors were unique among SME owners and differed from those of employees, with moderate positive correlations with both psychological distress and presenteeism. Further, the study revealed the roles of modifying factors; work-family conflict increased presenteeism and psychological distress, while self-care and social support decreased them. The findings provide important insights for assessing psychological stress among SME owners, informing future mental health intervention strategies among this population.

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties. METHODS: Adaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies. RESULTS: The updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs. CONCLUSION: The quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that measure aspects of health from the patient perspective. To measure a specific health aspect, often dozens of PROMs are available. To choose the best PROM, a systematic review of PROMs can be conducted, in which all information on the quality and feasibility of each available PROM is collected, rated, and compared. Based on such a review a choice for the most suitable PROM for a certain study or clinical application can be made. However, conducting a systematic review of PROMs is very challenging, because nine quality aspects of PROMs need to be taken into account.In this article, we present an updated step-by-step guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Each of these steps is described in detail in an accompanying manual. This updated guideline helps researchers to conduct systematic reviews of PROMs in a systematic and transparent way. It also helps readers of systematic reviews to understand how the review was conducted and to check the conclusions about which PROMs are recommended based on their quality.

Assessing social connection for long-term care home residents: Systematic review using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines.

Social connection is important for long-term care (LTC) residents' quality of life and care. However, there is a lack of consensus on how to measure it and this limits ability to find what improves and impairs social connection in LTC homes. We therefore aimed to systematically review and evaluate the measurement properties of existing measures of social connection for LTC residents, to identify which, if any, measures can be recommended. We searched eight electronic databases from inception to April 2022 for studies which reported on psychometric properties of a measure of any aspect(s) of social connection (including social networks, interaction, engagement, support, isolation, connectedness, and loneliness) for LTC residents. We used COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to evaluate the measurement properties reported for each identified measure and make recommendations. We identified 62 studies reporting on 38 measures; 21 measured quality of life, well-being or life satisfaction and included a social connection subscale or standalone items and 17 measures specifically targeted social connection. We found there was little high-quality evidence on psychometric properties such as sufficient content validity (n = 0), structural validity (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 3), reliability (n = 1), measurement error (n = 0), construct validity (n = 4), criterion validity (n = 0) and responsiveness (n = 0). No measures demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties on all these aspects, so none could be recommended for use. Thirty-four measures have the potential to be recommended but require further research to assess their quality and the remaining four are not recommended for use. Our review therefore found that no existing measures have sufficient evidence to be recommended for assessment of social connection in residents of LTC homes. Further validation and reliability studies of existing instruments or the development of new measures are needed to enable accurate measurement of social connection in LTC residents for future observational and interventional studies. Highlights: Social connection is fundamental to person-centered care in long-term care homes.There is insufficient evidence for the reliability and validity of existing measures.No current measures can be recommended for use based on existing evidence.A reliable and valid measure of social connection is needed for future research.

Development of a Video Consultation Patient-Satisfaction Questionnaire (vCare-PSQ): A Cross-Sectional Explorative Study.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of video consultation (VC) in primary care has expanded considerably in many countries. VC and other telehealth formats are often touted as a solution to improved health care access, with numerous studies showing high satisfaction with this care format among health professionals and patients. However, operationalization and measurement of patient satisfaction with VC varies across studies and often lacks consideration of dynamic contextual factors (eg, convenience, ease-of-use, or privacy) and doctor-patient relational variables that may influence patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: We aim to develop a comprehensive and evidence-based questionnaire for assessing patient satisfaction with VC in general practice. METHODS: The vCare Patient-Satisfaction Questionnaire (the vCare-PSQ) was developed according to the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) guidelines. To achieve our overall objective, we pursued three aims: (1) a validation analysis of an existing patient-satisfaction scale (the PS-14), (2) an assessment of extrinsic contextual factors that may impact patient satisfaction, and (3) an assessment of pertinent intrinsic and relational satisfaction correlates (eg, health anxiety, information technology literacy, trust in the general practitioner, or convenience). For validation purposes, the questionnaire was filled out by a convenience sample of 188 Danish adults who had attended at least 1 VC. RESULTS: Our validation analysis of the PS-14 in a Danish population produced reliable results, indicating that the PS-14 is an appropriate measure of patient satisfaction with VC in Danish patient populations. Regressing situational and doctor-patient relational factors onto patient satisfaction further suggested that patient satisfaction is contingent on several factors not measured by the PS-14. These include information technology literacy and patient trust in the general practitioner, as well as several contextual pros and cons. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementing the PS-14 with dynamic measures of situational and doctor-patient relational factors may provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient satisfaction with VC. The vCare-PSQ may thus contribute to an enhanced methodological approach to assessing patient satisfaction with VC. We hope that the vCare-PSQ format may be useful for future research and implementation efforts regarding VC in a general practice setting.

Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures assessing recovery from hand fractures: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To extensively review Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used to assess outcomes in persons with hand fractures in terms of their psychometric properties. METHODS: A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodological review was conducted. Six electronic databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL) for studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs assessing recovery from hand fracture. Titles and abstracts, full text review, quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved after review by a third, expert reviewer. Quality assessment of included studies was performed using the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: This COSMIN review found that there were only 4 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria in terms of assessing measurement properties of PROMs in hand fractures. Only the construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), the Quick DASH (QDASH) and the Duruoz Hand Index (DHI), and the responsiveness of the DASH, the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), the Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) and the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) were assessed in these studies. The overall rating of the studies was assessed as insufficient or indeterminate and quality of evidence was assessed as moderate, low, or very low by our team. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified that there is a lack of evidence in the medical literature with regards to the measurement properties of PROMs in patients with hand fractures. The 4 included studies do not provide good quality data to support the use of these PROMS in patients with hand fractures. There is a need for more studies for more PROMs. This has important consequences for how outcomes will be measured in clinical studies in hand research and in clinical practice.

Hand fractures are some of the most common types of fractures in adults. They affect patients in the short term with everyday activities and can have a long-term impact especially on people who use their hands a lot at work and at home. The recovery from a hand fracture, with whatever treatment, can be captured by questionnaires completed by patients at frequent time intervals. We looked at whether questionnaires, which could do so for these patients, have been assessed in previous studies. Even though this is an important topic, we only found a handful of studies which have done so, and these were not very robust in their assessment. This study indicates that there needs to be more work in the field which will be very helpful for clinical practice and future research.

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.

Selection of outcome measurement instruments for a core outcome set for trials aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Despite developing a polypharmacy core outcome set (COS) in primary care, it is not clear how these outcomes should be measured. AIM: To select outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for a COS targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older patients in primary care. METHOD: Following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, OMIs were identified from a Cochrane review focusing on appropriate polypharmacy. The quality of OMIs was assessed using a published checklist. Subsequently, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires were conducted via the SoGoSurvey® platform, engaging stakeholders (researchers, clinicians and journal editors specialising in geriatric primary care) to achieve consensus on OMIs using a scale encompassing "agree", "disagree", or "unsure". Consensus was achieved if 70% or more participants chose "agree" and 15% or fewer chose "disagree." RESULTS: The quality of 20 OMIs identified from the Cochrane review was evaluated. Seven OMIs were selected based on meeting the COSMIN guideline's minimum requirements. Out of 188 potential participants, 57 (30.3%) consented to participate. Rounds 1 and 2 of Delphi exercises were completed by 50 respondents, achieving agreement on three OMIs: 'number of serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs)' (98%), 'number of deaths' (76%), and 'number of patients who fell' (70%) for measuring 'serious ADRs,' 'mortality,' and 'falls,' respectively. No agreement was reached for 'medication appropriateness,' 'medication side-effects,' 'quality of life,' and 'medication regimen complexity.' CONCLUSION: OMIs were selected for a limited number of outcomes in the polypharmacy COS. Future research should identify suitable OMIs for the remaining four outcomes.

Protocol for a systematic review evaluating psychometric properties and gender-related measurement (non)invariance of self-report assessment tools for autism in adults.

BACKGROUND: Given the recent evidence on gender differences in the presentation of autism, there is an increasing concern that current tools for autism do not adequately capture traits more often found in women. If tools for autism measure autistic traits differently based on gender alone, their validity may be compromised as they may not be measuring the same construct across genders. Measurement invariance investigations of autism measures can help assess the validity of autism constructs for different genders. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and critically appraise the psychometric properties of all self-report tools for autism in adults that meet two criteria: (a) they have been published since or included in the NICE (2014) recommendations, and (b) they have undergone gender-related measurement invariance investigations as part of their validation process. METHODS: A search of electronic databases will be conducted from 2014 until the present using MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO using predefined search terms to identify eligible studies. The search for grey literature will include sources such as OpenGrey, APA PsycEXTRA, and Scopus. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility. The references of included studies will be searched for additional records. The methodological quality of the studies will be evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, while psychometric quality of findings will be assessed based on criteria for good measurement properties and ConPsy checklist. The quality of the total body of evidence will be appraised using the approach outlined in the modified GRADE guidelines. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will be among the first to assess the psychometric properties and gender-related measurement invariance of self-reported measures for autism in adults that were published since (or included in) NICE (2014) guidelines. The review will provide recommendations for the most suitable tool to assess for autism without gender bias. If no such measure is found, it will identify existing tools with promising psychometric properties that require further testing, or suggest developing a new measure. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The registration number is CRD42023429350.

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.

Measurement properties of the Iranian version of the breast cancer perception scale (BCPS) according to the COSMIN checklist.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a prevalent cancer characterized by its aggressive nature and potential to cause mortality among women. The rising mortality rates and women's inadequate perception of the disease's severity in developing countries highlight the importance of screening using conventional methods and reliable scales. Since the validity and reliability of the breast cancer perception scale (BCPS) have not been established in the Iranian context. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the measurement properties of the BCPS in women residing in Tabriz, Iran. METHODS: The present study comprised a cross-sectional design, encompassing a sample of 372 Iranian women. The participants were selected through a multi-stage cluster random sampling technique conducted over a period spanning from November 2022 to February 2023. The measurement properties of the Iranian version of BCPS were assessed following the guidelines outlined in the COSMIN checklist. This involved conducting various steps, including the translation process, reliability testing (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error), and methodological tests for validity (content validity, face validity, construct validity, and hypothesis testing). The study also investigated the factors of responsiveness and interpretability. The presence of floor and ceiling effects was assessed. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the scale was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, yielding a satisfactory value of 0.68. Additionally, McDonald's omega (95% CI) was computed, resulting in a value of 0.70 (0.66 to 0.74). Furthermore, the test-retest reliability was evaluated, revealing a high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.99). The CVI, CVR, and impact scores of the BCPS were determined to be 0.98, 0.95, and 3.70, respectively, indicating favorable levels of content and face validity. To assess construct validity, an examination of the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted on a set of 24 items. This analysis revealed the presence of six distinct factors, which collectively accounted for 52% of the cumulative variance. The fit indices of the validity model (CFI = 0.91, NFI = 0.96, RFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.90, χ2/df = 2.03, RMSEA = 0.055 and SRMR = 0.055) were confirmed during the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The overall score of BCPS exhibited a ceiling effect of 0.3%. The floor effect observed in the overall score (BCPS) was found to be 0.5%. Concerning the validation of the hypothesis, Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.55 was obtained between the BCPS and the QLICP-BR V2.0. This correlation value signifies a statistically significant association. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the minimum important change (MIC) of 3.92 exhibited a higher value compared to the smallest detectable change (SDC) of 3.70, thus suggesting a satisfactory level of response. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained findings suggest that the Iranian version of the BCPS demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties for assessing the perception of breast cancer among Iranian women. Furthermore, it exhibits favorable responsiveness to clinical variations. Consequently, it can serve as a screening instrument for healthcare professionals to comprehend breast cancer and as a reliable tool in research endeavors.

Measurement properties of the Foot Function Index (FFI) questionnaire: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Large numbers of people are subject to alterations and pathologies in the foot. To quantify how these problems of foot function affect the quality of life, clinicians and researchers have developed measures such as the Foot Function Index (FFI). Our aim is to determine the methodological quality of the FFI including adaptations to other languages. DATA SOURCES: The studies considered in this review were extracted from the PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases. The inclusion criteria were followed: (1) studies of patients with no previous foot or ankle pathology and aged over 18 years; (2) based on English-language patient-reported outcome measures that assess foot function; (3) the patient-reported outcome measures should present measurement properties based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. REVIEW METHODS: The systematic review was conducted following the COSMIN criteria to establish the methodological quality of the original FFI, together with its variants and adaptations. The last search was carried out in May 2024. RESULTS: Of the 1994 studies obtained in the preliminary search, 20 were eligible for inclusion in the final analysis. These results are the validations and cross-cultural adaptations to the following languages: the original FFI has cross-cultural adaptation in 13 languages and the FFI-Revised Short Form has been adapted and validated for use in 2 languages. CONCLUSION: In terms of methodological quality, the FFI-Revised Short Form questionnaire is a valuable instrument for evaluating ankle and foot function and could usefully be expanded to be available in more languages.

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: a systematic review psychometrics properties using the COSMIN.

Background: Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts and different populations, including general or clinical. Objective: This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales. Methods: International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms, including "psychometric", "validity", "reliability", "Connor-Davidson resilience scale", "Resilience scale", for published articles up to 1 February 2023. For each of the selected studies, the risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then the COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality. Results: Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN's criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies' limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g. conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC-25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent. Conclusion: The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.