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.

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.

Differences in Objective Physical Activity Between Children With Visual Impairment and Those With Normal Sight.

Purpose: To compare objective physical activity (PA) levels of children with visual impairment (VI) and children with normal sight. Methods: One hundred children with VI and 100 age- and gender-matched normal-sighted peers 7 to 17 years of age wore an ActiGraph for 1 week. Activity count per minute (cpm) was modeled using a series of generalized linear mixed-effects models including vision, age, sex, time of day, and vision by time of day interaction. PA outcomes included mean counts per minute and proportion of time spent on sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous intensity PA. Results: Data of 83 children with VI and 77 normal-sighted peers were included. Mean counts per minute were lower in children with VI (P < 0.001), especially during and after school. Children with VI were less sedentary (55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 53-57) than children with normal sight before school (62%; 95% CI, 60-64) and over weekends: children with VI, 41% (95% CI, 39-43); children with normal sight, 45% (95% CI, 43-47). Yet, children with VI were more sedentary during school (36%; 95% CI, 34-37) compared with children with normal sight (30%; 95% CI, 29-32). They also spent more time performing light PA and less time performing moderate PA at school and vigorous PA across all periods of day (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Children with VI participated in light and moderate PA but did not perform as much vigorous PA as children with normal sight, especially during school hours. Translational Relevance: There is a need to promote more intense PA programs in schools tailored for children with VI.

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.

Developments in the Design, Conduct, and Reporting of Child Health Trials.

To identify priority areas to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of pediatric clinical trials, the international expert network, Standards for Research (StaR) in Child Health, was assembled and published the first 6 Standards in Pediatrics in 2012. After a recent review summarizing the 247 publications by StaR Child Health authors that highlight research practices that add value and reduce research "waste," the current review assesses the progress in key child health trial methods areas: consent and recruitment, containing risk of bias, roles of data monitoring committees, appropriate sample size calculations, outcome selection and measurement, and age groups for pediatric trials. Although meaningful change has occurred within the child health research ecosystem, measurable progress is still disappointingly slow. In this context, we identify and review emerging trends that will advance the agenda of increased clinical usefulness of pediatric trials, including patient and public engagement, Bayesian statistical approaches, adaptive designs, and platform trials. We explore how implementation science approaches could be applied to effect measurable improvements in the design, conducted, and reporting of child health 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.

Sleep Patterns in Children With Blindness: A Comparison With Normally Sighted Peers.

Purpose: Studies showing problematic sleep patterns in blind and visually impaired children are often based on (parent) self-report. The purpose was to compare sleep patterns of blind children to normally sighted peers using objective measures. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 100 blind (best-corrected visual acuity <3/60) and 100 age- and gender-matched normally sighted children aged 7 to 17 years wore a digital activity monitoring device for 1 week. Sleep quantity (i.e., total sleep time and total time in bed) and sleep quality (number of awakenings, latency, efficiency, wake after sleep onset [WASO], and sleep fragmentation index) were measured. Adjusted linear regression analyses were used to model group differences in sleep parameters. Results: Data of 163 children were included. Blind children spent significantly less total time in bed in minutes (ß, -31; 95% confidence interval, -56 to -6) and had a lower total sleep time (-41; -66 to -17), smaller number of awakenings (-2.8; -4.5 to -1.0), a lower WASO (-10; -16 to -5), and a more efficient sleep pattern (1.5; 0.1 to 2.8) compared to normally sighted children. Conclusions: Although sleep quantity and recommended hours of sleep per night were lower among blind children than normally sighted children, their sleep quality was better. This contradicts findings of self-report studies and warrants further studies to measure sleep objectively. Further, the discrepancy between previous findings and our findings regarding sleep quality may be explained by the house rules of the boarding schools attended by blind children, which may facilitate improved sleep hygiene.

Youth and family involvement in the development of a plain language trial results communication tool: CommuniKIDS.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric trials are possible through voluntary participation of children, youth (age ≤ 18 years), and their families. Despite important arguments for trialists to provide trial progress or results, and evidence that participants desire it, this information remains rarely shared with youth and their families. Little guidance exists on how trialists can best communicate trial results back to participants and their families. Guided by Liabo et al.'s framework, we describe how we developed a pediatric-specific, "plain language summary" clinical trial results template called CommuniKIDS with an adult patient partner, family partner (parent), youth advisors, and parent advisors, taking into account their unique knowledge needs and preferences. MAIN TEXT: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) was integrated in the development of the CommuniKIDS template. In collaboration with Clinical Trials Ontario, we used a generic trial results template as a starting point. The core project leadership team included a patient partner and a family partner from project inception to completion. Five youth (ages 13-18 years) and eight parent advisors were consulted at each point of the development process through three virtual workshops conducted separately; youth workshops were led by a youth facilitator. During these workshops, advisors agreed on the importance and value of sharing trial results, and expressed their preferences on content, format, and timing of sharing trial results. PPI-led improvements included the addition of three new sections to the CommuniKIDS template: "at a glance," "side effects," and "next steps." We reflect on our PPI strategy in the context of five "values" and six "practicalities" identified as good PPI principles, and summarize lessons learned when collaborating with youth and families from this project. CONCLUSION: Involvement of a patient partner, a family partner, youth advisors, and parent advisors in the development of CommuniKIDS was critical to create a clinical trial results template that is useful and relevant to its end-users. To our knowledge, CommuniKIDS is the first to meaningfully engage youth and parents as advisors and partners in developing a plain language summary results template for pediatric trial participants and their families. Our experience of co-developing CommuniKIDS demonstrates that meaningful PPI can be achieved in trial results communication and knowledge translation practices. This report provides resources for those seeking to involve youth and families in their initiatives and in meaningfully sharing trial results.

The voluntary participation of youth aged 18 and under in clinical trials makes it possible for researchers and healthcare providers to study medications and other treatments. However, most youth and their families who take part in clinical trials do not get any information on the trial's progress or results, leaving many to wonder if anything useful came from their participation. There is an ethical obligation to give this information back to youth and their families, who might take risks by participating in trials. The aim of the CommuniKIDS project was to develop a "plain language summary" results template to share trial results back to youth and their families. Working with a patient partner, a family partner, five youth advisors (ages 13­18), and eight parent advisors, we set out to understand what youth and parents would like to see in a plain language summary of clinical trial results. The needs and preferences discussed with the advisors were included to create a child/youth health-specific template. The CommuniKIDS project is the first to involve youth and parents as advisors in developing a plain language summary results template for child/youth health trials. Here, we describe how we involved youth and parents in the development of CommuniKIDS, how the template was customized to be youth and family-friendly and reflect on lessons learned.

Measurement Properties of Patient Reported Outcome Scales: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Recently a standard set for overall pediatric health outcomes in routine care was developed, which includes patient (or proxy) reported outcome measures (PROMs) for global health, cognitive functioning, and self-efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the following PROMs have sufficient measurement properties to be used in pediatric routine care: PROMIS Pediatric and Parent Proxy Scale - Global Health 7+2, PROMIS Parent Proxy Short Form - Cognitive Function 7a, and NIH Toolbox Self-Efficacy CAT Ages 13 to 17. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Psych INFO, and Web of Science were searched from year of inception of each PROM to May 25, 2020; Medline to October 24, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English, full-text peer-reviewed articles that evaluated measurement properties of included PROMs were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews was used to appraise eligible studies and synthesize the overall evidence. RESULTS: Screening >4000 titles yielded 4 to 6 eligible empirical studies for each PROM. The PROMIS instruments had sufficient content validity with low-quality evidence and at least low-quality evidence for sufficient structural validity and internal consistency. The NIH Toolbox lacked essential evidence for content validity. LIMITATIONS: Assessments of measurement properties were based on information reported in the included studies; underreporting might have led to less favorable ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS instruments assessed in this review measure their intended construct for their targeted age group; clinicians can use these PROMs in pediatric routine care. Additional studies evaluating measurement properties, including content validity, are needed for the NIH Toolbox before it should be recommended for use in clinical practice.

The evaluation of an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool in older adults receiving home healthcare.

PURPOSE: To investigate the agreement between an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool and reference tests in older adults receiving home healthcare and to collect user experiences. METHODS: Older adults (65+) receiving home healthcare were included. Home healthcare nurses assisted in administering the eye-screening tool at participants' homes. Approximately 2 weeks later, a researcher administered reference tests at participants' homes. Experiences from participants and home healthcare nurses were collected. Agreement in outcomes (distance and near visual acuity, with the latter being measured using two different optotypes, and macular problems) between the eye-screening tool and reference clinical testing was compared. A difference of less than ±0.15 logMAR was considered acceptable. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were included. Here, we describe the results for the right eye; results for the left eye were similar. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests for distance visual acuity was 0.02 logMAR. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests using two different optotypes for near visual acuity was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively. The majority of the individual data points were within the ±0.15 logMAR threshold (75%, 51% and 58%, respectively). The agreement between tests for macular problems was 75%. Participants and home healthcare nurses were generally satisfied with the eye-screening tool, although remarks for further improvements were made. CONCLUSIONS: The eye-screening tool is promising for nurse-assisted eye screening in older adults receiving home healthcare, with the mostly satisfactory agreement. After implementing the eye-screening tool in practice, cost-effectiveness needs to be investigated.

Psychometric properties and reference values of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep item banks in the Dutch general population.

Psychometric properties of the v1.0 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) sleep disturbance (27 items) and sleep-related impairment (SRI; 16 items) item banks, short forms derived from the item bank, and simulated computerised adaptive test (CAT), were assessed in a representative sample of 1,006 adults from the Dutch general population. For sleep disturbance all items fitted the item response theory model. Four items showed differential item functioning (i.e., lack of measurement invariance) for age and two for language but the impact on scores (expressed as T-scores) was small. Reliable scores (r > 0.90) were found for 92.2%-96.3% of respondents with the full bank, short forms with six and eight items, and CAT, but for only 25.6% with the four-item short form. For SRI two items did not fit the item response theory model. Four items showed differential item functioning for language but the impact on T-scores was small. Reliable scores were found for 82.1% with the full bank, for 47.8%-69.5% with short forms and CAT. T-scores of 49.7 and 49.3 represent the average score of the Dutch general population for sleep disturbance and SRI, respectively. In conclusion, sufficient structural validity, reliability, and cross-cultural validity was found for the full banks but short forms of four items are not reliable enough for clinical practice. For SRI we recommend the full item bank if this is the primary outcome.

Towards standardization of measuring anxiety and depression: Differential item functioning for language and Dutch reference values of PROMIS item banks.

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes anxiety and depression are measured frequently by healthcare providers to assess the impact of a disease, but with numerous instruments. PROMIS item banks provide an opportunity for standardized measurement. Cross-cultural validity of measures and the availability of reference values are prerequisites for standardized measurement. METHODS: PROMIS Anxiety and Depression item banks were completed by 1002 representative Dutch persons. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, data from US participants in PROMIS wave 1 were used and differential item functioning (DIF) was investigated, using an iterative hybrid of logistic regression and item response theory. McFadden's pseudo R2-change of 2% was the critical threshold. The impact of any DIF on full item banks and short forms was investigated. To obtain Dutch reference values, T-scores for anxiety and depression were calculated for the complete Dutch sample, and age-group and gender subpopulations. Thresholds corresponding to normal limits, mild, moderate and severe symptoms were computed. RESULTS: In both item banks, two items had DIF but with minimal impact on population level T-scores for full item banks and short forms. The Dutch general population had a T-score of 49.9 for anxiety and 49.6 for depression, similar to the T-scores of 50.0 of the US general population. T-scores for age-group and gender subpopulations were also similar to T-scores of the US general population. Thresholds for mild, moderate and severe anxiety and depression were set to 55, 60 and 70, identical to US thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: The limited number of items with DIF and its minimal impact, enables the use of standard (US) item parameters and comparisons of scores between Dutch and US populations. The Dutch reference values provide an important tool for healthcare professionals and researchers to evaluate and interpret symptoms of anxiety and depression, stimulating the uptake of PROMIS measures, and contributing to standardized outcome measurement.

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.

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.

Measurement properties of the Dutch PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile in people with and without chronic conditions.

PURPOSE: To investigate the structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, and construct validity of the Dutch PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile, including seven physical (e.g., pain, physical function), mental (e.g., depression, anxiety), and social (e.g., role functioning) domains of health, in a Dutch general population sample including subsamples with and without chronic diseases. METHODS: The PROMIS-29 was completed by 63,602 participants from the Lifelines cohort study. Structural validity of the PROMIS-29, including unidimensionality of each domain and the physical and mental health summary scores, was evaluated using factor analyses (criteria: CFI ≥ 0.95, TLI ≥ 0.95, RMSEA ≤ 0.06, SRMR ≤ 0.08). Internal consistency, measurement invariance (no differential item functioning (DIF) for age, gender, administration mode, educational level, ethnicity, chronic diseases), and construct validity (hypotheses on known-groups validity and correlations between domains) were assessed per domain. RESULTS: The factor structure of the seven domains was supported (CFI = 0.994, TLI = 0.993, RMSEA = 0.046, SRMR = 0.031) as was unidimensionality of each domain, both in the entire sample and the subsamples. Model fit of the physical and mental health summary scores reached the criteria, and scoring coefficients were obtained. Cronbach's alpha for the seven PROMIS-29 domains ranged from 0.75 to 0.96 in the complete sample. No DIF was detected. Of the predefined hypotheses, 78% could be confirmed. CONCLUSION: Sufficient structural validity, internal consistency and measurement invariance were found, both in the entire sample and in subsamples with and without chronic diseases. Requirements for sufficient evidence for construct validity were (almost) met for most subscales. Future studies should investigate test-retest reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness of the PROMIS-29.

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.

Perspectives on Implementing the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 in Low-Vision Service Organizations to Screen for Depression and Anxiety.

Purpose: To describe the process of implementing a screening questionnaire for depression and anxiety, the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), in low-vision service (LVS) organizations. Methods: This study consisted of three parts: (1) a usability study combined with semistructured interviews, in which clients (n = 10) of LVS organizations expressed their preference for using the PHQ-4; (2) a feasibility study, in which the PHQ-4 was implemented on a small scale and its use was evaluated, involving health care providers (n = 6) and clients (n = 9); and (3) semistructured interviews to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the PHQ-4 according to health care providers (n = 6) and managers (n = 4) of LVS organizations. Results were integrated into themes and linked to constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Six themes were derived from the substudies: (1) quality of the intervention, (2) applicability for clients of LVS organizations, (3) attitude and needs of clients, (4) attitude of health care providers, (5) support within LVS organizations, and (6) embedment in current practice. Results could be linked to 12 CFIR constructs. The constructs "relative advantage," "patient needs and resources," and "available resources" emerged most prominently in our themes as either barrier or facilitator. Conclusions: The PHQ-4 seems an appropriate screening instrument for use in LVS organizations because of its quality and adaptable use. It might provide opportunities to timely detect depression and anxiety, but challenges in implementing the PHQ-4 should be considered. Translational Relevance: Barriers and facilitators for implementing the PHQ-4 may also apply to implementing other questionnaires in LVS organizations.