Baseline PET radiomics outperforms the IPI risk score for prediction of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The objective of this study is to externally validate the clinical positron emission tomography (PET) model developed in the HOVON-84 trial and to compare the model performance of our clinical PET model using the international prognostic index (IPI). In total, 1195 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) were included in the study. Data of 887 patients from 6 studies were used as external validation data sets. The primary outcomes were 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 2-year time to progression (TTP). The metabolic tumor volume (MTV), maximum distance between the largest lesion and another lesion (Dmaxbulk), and peak standardized uptake value (SUVpeak) were extracted. The predictive values of the IPI and clinical PET model (MTV, Dmaxbulk, SUVpeak, performance status, and age) were tested. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), and diagnostic performance, using the positive predictive value (PPV). The IPI yielded an AUC of 0.62. The clinical PET model yielded a significantly higher AUC of 0.71 (P < .001). Patients with high-risk IPI had a 2-year PFS of 61.4% vs 51.9% for those with high-risk clinical PET, with an increase in PPV from 35.5% to 49.1%, respectively. A total of 66.4% of patients with high-risk IPI were free from progression or relapse vs 55.5% of patients with high-risk clinical PET scores, with an increased PPV from 33.7% to 44.6%, respectively. The clinical PET model remained predictive of outcome in 6 independent first-line DLBCL studies, and had higher model performance than the currently used IPI in all studies.

Development of a simple standardized scoring system for assessing large vessel vasculitis by 18F-FDG PET-CT and differentiation from atherosclerosis.

PURPOSE: This study is to develop a structured approach to distinguishing large-artery vasculitis from atherosclerosis using 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography combined with low-dose computed tomography (FDG PET/CT). METHODS: FDG PET/CT images of 60 patients were evaluated, 30 having biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis (GCA; the most common form of large-artery vasculitis), and 30 with severe atherosclerosis. Images were evaluated by 12 nuclear medicine physicians using 5 criteria: FDG uptake pattern (intensity, distribution, circularity), the degree of calcification, and co-localization of calcifications with FDG-uptake. Criteria that passed agreement, and reliability tests were subsequently analysed for accuracy using receiver operator curve (ROC) analyses. Criteria that showed discriminative ability were then combined in a multi-component scoring system. Both initial and final 'gestalt' conclusion were also reported by observers before and after detailed examination of the images. RESULTS: Agreement and reliability analyses disqualified 3 of the 5 criteria, leaving only FDG uptake intensity compared to liver uptake and arterial wall calcification for potential use in a scoring system. ROC analysis showed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 (95%CI 0.87-0.92) for FDG uptake intensity. Degree of calcification showed poor discriminative ability on its own (AUC of 0.62; 95%CI 0.58-0.66). When combining presence of calcification with FDG uptake intensity into a 6-tiered scoring system, the AUC remained similar at 0.91 (95%CI 0.88-0.93). After exclusion of cases with arterial prostheses, the AUC increased to 0.93 (95%CI 0.91-0.95). The accuracy of the 'gestalt' conclusion was initially 89% (95%CI 86-91%) and increased to 93% (95%CI 91-95%) after detailed image examination. CONCLUSION: Standardised assessment of arterial wall FDG uptake intensity, preferably combined with assessment of arterial calcifications into a scoring method, enables accurate, but not perfect, distinction between large artery vasculitis and atherosclerosis.

Development of the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) 3.0: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) is widely used for measurements of scar quality. This encompasses visual, tactile and sensory characteristics of the scar. The Patient Scale of previous POSAS versions was lacking input from patients. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale with involvement of adults patients with all scar types, complying with the highest clinimetric standards. METHODS: From February 2018 to April 2019, a series of six focus group interviews were performed in the Netherlands and Australia to identify scar quality characteristics that adults with scars consider to be important. All focus groups were transcribed, anonymized and analysed using a thematic analysis. Relevant characteristics were formulated into items, resulting in a Dutch and English version of the Patient Scale. These drafts were pilot tested in Australia, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, and refined accordingly. RESULTS: A total of 21 relevant scar quality characteristics were identified during the focus groups. Two distinct versions of the POSAS3.0, Patient Scale were developed. The Generic version contains 16 items and can be used for all scar types, except linear scars. The Linear Scar version of the Patient Scale contains the same 16 items, with an extra item referring to the widening of scar margins. All included items are rated on a verbal rating scale with five response options. CONCLUSION: Two versions of the POSAS3.0 Patient Scale were developed. Further field tests are being performed to establish the measurement properties and scoring algorithm of the scales.

Aberrant patterns of PET response during treatment for DLBCL patients with MYC gene rearrangements.

PURPOSE: MYC gene rearrangements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients are associated with poor prognosis. Our aim was to compare patterns of 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography computed tomography (PET/CT) response in MYC + and MYC- DLBCL patients. METHODS: Interim PET/CT (I-PET) and end of treatment PET/CT (EoT-PET) scans of 81 MYC + and 129 MYC- DLBCL patients from 2 HOVON trials were reviewed using the Deauville 5-point scale (DS). DS1-3 was regarded as negative and DS4-5 as positive. Standardized uptake values (SUV) and metabolic tumor volume (MTV) were quantified at baseline, I-PET, and EoT-PET. Negative (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated using 2-year overall survival. RESULTS: MYC + DLBCL patients had significantly more positive EoT-PET scans than MYC- patients (32.5 vs 15.7%, p = 0.004). I-PET positivity rates were comparable (28.8 vs 23.8%). In MYC + patients 23.2% of the I-PET negative patients converted to positive at EoT-PET, vs only 2% for the MYC- patients (p = 0.002). Nine (34.6%) MYC + DLBCL showed initially uninvolved localizations at EoT-PET, compared to one (5.3%) MYC- patient. A total of 80.8% of EoT-PET positive MYC + patients showed both increased lesional SUV and MTV compared to I-PET. In MYC- patients, 31.6% showed increased SUV and 42.1% showed increased MTV. NPV of I-PET and EoT-PET was high for both MYC subgroups (81.8-94.1%). PPV was highest at EoT-PET for MYC + patients (61.5%). CONCLUSION: MYC + DLBCL patients demonstrate aberrant PET response patterns compared to MYC- patients with more frequent progression during treatment after I-PET negative assessment and new lesions at sites that were not initially involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION: HOVON-84: EudraCT: 2006-005,174-42, retrospectively registered 01-08-2008. HOVON-130: EudraCT: 2014-002,654-39, registered 26-01-2015.

Field-Testing the Euro-MCD Instrument: Important Outcomes According to Participants Before and After Moral Case Deliberation.

Ethics support services like Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) intend to support healthcare professionals in ethically difficult situations. To assess outcomes of MCD, the Euro-MCD Instrument has been developed. Field studies to test this instrument are needed and have been conducted, examining important outcomes before MCD participation and experienced outcomes. The current study aimed to (1) describe how participants' perceive the importance of MCD outcomes after MCD; (2) compare these perceptions with those before MCD participation; and (3) test the factor structure of these outcomes. Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch healthcare professionals rated the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument after four and eight MCDs. Ratings were compared with those before MCD participation using paired and independent samples t-tests. The factor structure was tested using exploratory factor analyses. After 4 and 8 MCDs, 443 respectively 247 respondents completed the instrument. More than 69% rated all MCD outcomes as 'quite' or 'very' important, especially outcomes from Enhanced Collaboration, Improved Moral Reflexivity and Improved Moral Attitude. Significant differences for 16 outcomes regarding ratings before and after MCD participation were not considered meaningful. Factor analyses suggested three categories, which seemingly resemble the domains Improved Moral Reflexivity, Enhanced Collaboration and a combination of Improved Moral Attitude and Enhanced Emotional Support. After participation in MCDs, respondents confirmed the importance of outcomes in the Euro-MCD Instrument. The question on perceived importance and the categorization of outcomes need reconsideration. The revised instrument will be presented elsewhere, based on all field studies and theoretical reflections.

The Submental Nasal Appearance Scale for the Assessment of Repaired Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip: A Validation Study.

OBJECTIVE: To reassess reliability and validity of the Submental Nasal Appearance Scale (SNAS) compared to the preliminary pilot study, for assessment of patient photographs with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP). When utilizing the SNAS, 3 nasal features (1. nasal outline; 2. alar base position; 3. nostril axis) must be graded according to symmetry between the cleft and noncleft side using a 5-point scale with reference photographs for each feature. The mean score calculated from the graded features reflects the overall degree of nasal symmetry, which is considered an important goal when repairing UCLP. DESIGN: Fifty patient photographs were selected and cropped, displaying the submental view. Six raters assessed these photographs using the SNAS and a separate 5-point scale to assess the overall submental appearance. Interrater reliability was determined for both methods and correlation was calculated between these as an indication of construct validity. SETTING: Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Six- to 9-year-old patients with repaired UCLP. RESULTS: Interrater reliability of 0.73 and 0.48 was found for the SNAS and overall appearance assessment, respectively, while in the pilot study values of 0.79 and 0.69 were found. Correlation of 0.59 and 0.74 was found in the current and pilot study, respectively, between the SNAS and overall appearance assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The SNAS is a reliable tool to assess nasal symmetry from the submental perspective. Reliability of the SNAS is higher compared to grading overall appearance, but validity of the SNAS was less well supported.

COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values. METHODS: We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee. CONCLUSION: We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.

Moral competence, moral teamwork and moral action - the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes (Euro-MCD) Instrument 2.0 and its revision process.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Ethics Support (CES) services are offered to support healthcare professionals in dealing with ethically difficult situations. Evaluation of CES is important to understand if it is indeed a supportive service in order to inform and improve future implementation of CES. Yet, methods to measure outcomes of CES are scarce. In 2014, the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD) was developed to measure outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD). To further validate the instrument, we tested it in field studies and revised it. This paper presents the Euro-MCD 2.0 and describes the revision process. METHODS: The revision process comprised an iterative dialogue among the authors as Euro-MCD-project team, including empirical findings from six Euro-MCD field-studies and input from European experts in CES and theory. Empirical findings contained perceptions and experiences of MCD outcomes among healthcare professionals who participated in MCDs in various settings in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Theoretical viewpoints on CES, literature on goals of CES and MCD and ethics theory guided the interpretation of the empirical findings and final selection of MCD outcomes. RESULTS: The Euro-MCD 2.0 Instrument includes three domains: Moral Competence, Moral Teamwork and Moral Action. Moral Competence consists of items about moral sensitivity, analytical skills and virtuous attitude. Moral Teamwork includes open dialogue and supportive relationships and Moral Action refers to moral decision-making and responsible care. During the revision process, we made decisions about adding and reformulating items as well as decreasing the number from 26 to 15 items. We also altered the sentence structure of items to assess the current status of outcomes (e.g. 'now') instead of an assumed improvement over time (e.g. 'better') and we omitted the question about perceived importance. CONCLUSIONS: The Euro-MCD 2.0 is shorter, less complex and more strongly substantiated by an integration of empirical findings, theoretical reflections and dialogues with participants and experts. Use of the Euro-MCD 2.0 will facilitate evaluation of MCD and can thereby monitor and foster implementation and quality of MCD. The Euro-MCD 2.0 will strengthen future research on evaluation of outcomes of MCD.

Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks 'Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities' (35 items) and 'Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities' (44 items) were developed to measure (satisfaction with) participation more efficiently and precisely than current instruments, by using Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT). We validated these item banks in a Dutch general population. METHODS: Participants in an internet panel completed both item banks. Unidimensionality, local dependence, monotonicity, Graded Response Model item fit, Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for age, gender, education, region, ethnicity, and language (Dutch compared to US Social Supplement), and reliability were assessed. RESULTS: A representative Dutch sample of 1002 people participated. We found for the Ability to Participate and Satisfaction with Participation item banks, respectively, sufficient unidimensionality (CFI: 0.971, 0.960; TLI: 0.970, 0.958; RMSEA: 0.108, 0.108), no local dependence, sufficient monotonicity (H: 0.75, 0.73), good item fit (2 out of 35 items, 1 out of 44 items with S-X2p-value < 0.001). No DIF was found. We found a reliability of at least 0.90 with simulated CATs in 86% and 94% of the participants with on average 4.7 (range 2-12) and 4.3 (range 3-12) items, respectively. DISCUSSION: The PROMIS participation item banks showed sufficient psychometric properties in a general Dutch population and can be used as CAT. PROMIS CATs allow reliable and valid measurement of participation in an efficient and user-friendly way with limited administration time.

High and Intensive Care in Psychiatry: Validating the HIC Monitor as a Tool for Assessing the Quality of Psychiatric Intensive Care Units.

This study aims to validate the HIC monitor as a model-fidelity scale to the High and Intensive Care (HIC) model, a recently developed model for acute psychiatric wards. To assess the psychometric properties of the HIC monitor, 37 audits were held on closed inpatient wards at 20 psychiatric hospitals in the Netherlands. Interrater reliability, construct validity and content validity were examined. Our results suggest that the HIC monitor has good psychometric properties. It can be used as a tool for assessing the implementation of the HIC model on acute psychiatric wards in the Netherlands, and for quality assessment and improvement.

COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

PURPOSE: The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. METHODS: For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.

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

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. RESULTS: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.

COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM's content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales ('strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'), and provided arguments for their ratings. RESULTS: Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. DISCUSSION: The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice.

The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-Year-Old Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate Patients: A Tool for Nasolabial Aesthetics Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and easy-to-use method to assess the nasolabial appearance of 18-year-old patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (CLP). DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of nasolabial aesthetics using a 5-point ordinal scale and newly developed photographic reference scale: the Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale (CARS). Three cleft surgeons and 20 medical students scored the nasolabial appearance on standardized frontal photographs. SETTING: VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam. PATIENTS: Inclusion criteria: 18-year-old patients, unilateral cleft lip and palate, available photograph of the frontal view. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: history of facial trauma, congenital syndromes affecting facial appearance. Eighty photographs were available for scoring. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the CARS for 18-year-old patients when used by cleft surgeons and medical students. RESULTS: The interobserver reliability for the nose and lip together was 0.64 for the cleft surgeons and 0.61 for the medical students. There was an intraobserver reliability of 0.75 and 0.78 from the surgeons and students, respectively, on the nose and lip together. No significant difference was found between the cleft surgeons and medical students in the way they scored the nose ( P = 0.22) and lip ( P = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The Cleft Aesthetic Rating Scale for 18-year-old patients has a substantial overall estimated reliability when the average score is taken from three or more cleft surgeons or medical students assessing the nasolabial aesthetics of CLP patients.

Decision support systems for incurable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Individually tailored cancer treatment is essential to ensure optimal treatment and resource use. Treatments for incurable metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are evolving rapidly, and decision support systems (DSS) for this patient population have been developed to balance benefits and harms for decision-making. The aim of this systematic review was to inventory DSS for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. DSS were described extensively, including their predictors, model performances (i.e., discriminative ability and calibration), levels of validation and user friendliness. RESULTS: The systematic search yielded 3531 articles. In total, 67 articles were included after additional reference tracking. The 39 identified DSS aim to predict overall survival and/or progression-free survival, but give no information about toxicity or cost-effectiveness. Various predictors were incorporated, such as performance status, serum and inflammatory markers, and patient and tumor characteristics. Some DSS were developed for the entire incurable NSCLC population, whereas others were specifically for patients with brain or spinal metastases. Few DSS had been validated externally using recent clinical data, and the discrimination and calibration were often poor. CONCLUSIONS: Many DSS have been developed for incurable NSCLC patients, but DSS are still lacking that are up-to-date with a good model performance, while covering the entire treatment spectrum. Future DSS should incorporate genetic and biological markers based on state-of-the-art evidence, and compare multiple treatment options to estimate survival, toxicity and cost-effectiveness.

The assessment of anorexia in patients with cancer: cut-off values for the FAACT-A/CS and the VAS for appetite.

PURPOSE: Anorexia is a frequently observed symptom in patients with cancer and is associated with limited food intake and decreased quality of life. Diagnostic instruments such as the Anorexia/Cachexia Subscale (A/CS) of the Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT) questionnaire and the visual analog scale (VAS) for appetite have been recommended in the assessment of anorexia, but validated cut-off values are lacking. This study aimed to obtain cut-off values of these instruments for the assessment of anorexia in patients with cancer. METHODS: The FAACT-A/CS and the VAS for appetite were administered to patients with cancer before start of chemotherapy. As reference standard for anorexia, two external criteria were used: (1) a cut-off value of ≥2 on the anorexia symptom scale of the EORTC QLQ C-30 and (2) the question "Do you experience a decreased appetite?" (yes/no). ROC curves were used to examine the optimal cut-off values for the FAACT-A/CS and VAS. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients (58 % male; 64.0 ± 10.6 years) were included. The median score on the FAACT-A/CS was 38 (IQR 32-42) points and 77 (IQR 47-93) points on the VAS. Considering both external criteria, the optimal cut-off value for the FAACT-A/CS was ≤37 (sensitivity (se) 80 %, specificity (sp) 81 %, positive predictive value (PV(+)) 79 %, negative predictive value (PV(-)) 82 %) and for the VAS was ≤70 (se 76 %, sp 83 %, PV(+) 80 %, PV(-) 79 %). CONCLUSIONS: For the assessment of anorexia in patients with cancer, our study suggests cut-off values of ≤37 for the FAACT-A/CS and ≤70 for the VAS. Future studies should confirm our findings in other patient samples.

The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools for the selection of instruments for research and clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether the quality has improved since our previous study in 2007. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE between July 1, 2013, and June 19, 2014. The quality of the reviews was rated using a study-specific checklist. RESULTS: A total of 102 reviews were included. In many reviews the search strategy was considered not comprehensive; in only 59 % of the reviews a search was performed in EMBASE and in about half of the reviews there was doubt about the comprehensiveness of the search terms used for type of measurement instruments and measurement properties. In 41 % of the reviews, compared to 30 % in our previous study, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. In 58 %, compared to 55 %, the quality of the included instruments was assessed. In 42 %, compared to 7 %, a data synthesis was performed in which the results from multiple studies on the same instrument were somehow combined. CONCLUSION: Despite a clear improvement in the quality of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments in comparison with our previous study in 2007, there is still room for improvement with regard to the search strategy, and especially the quality assessment of the included studies and the included instruments, and the data synthesis.

Reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the neck disability index-Dutch version in primary care.

PURPOSE: To establish an evidence-based recommendation for the pragmatic use of the Neck Disability Index-Dutch Version (NDI-DV) in primary care based on an assessment of the reliability, the responsiveness, and the interpretability of the NDI-DV. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING/METHODS: At baseline, the NDI-DV was completed by 337 patients with neck pain presenting to 97 chiropractic clinics in Belgium and the Netherlands. Three months after inclusion, 265 patients provided data to assess the responsiveness and interpretability. Reliability was assessed in 155 patients (retested after 10 days) by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient for agreement (ICCagreement) and the measurement error (standard error of measurement, SEM), the latter resulting in the smallest detectable change (SDC). The minimal important change (MIC) was assessed by the anchor-based MIC distribution using self-reported perceived recovery as anchor. We tested interpretability by relating SDC to MIC. RESULTS: The ICCagreement was 0.88. The SEMagreement was 1.95 resulting in a SDC of 5.40. The NDI-DV appeared to be responsive, being able to distinguish improved from stable patients with an area under the curve of 0.85. The MIC was 4.50. CONCLUSION: The NDI-DV has good reliability and responsiveness and may be used in clinical practice in Belgium and the Netherlands. A change score of 5 is important for patients, but has a 7 % chance to be due to measurement error.

The assessment of publication pressure in medical science; validity and reliability of a Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ).

PURPOSE: To determine content validity, structural validity, construct validity and reliability of an internet-based questionnaire designed for assessment of publication pressure experienced by medical scientists. METHODS: The Publication Pressure Questionnaire (PPQ) was designed to assess psychological pressure to publish scientific papers. Content validity was evaluated by collecting independent comments from external experts (n = 7) on the construct, comprehensiveness and relevance of the PPQ. Structural validity was assessed by factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) using the generalized partial credit model. Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to assess potential correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). Single test reliability (lambda2) was obtained from the IRT analysis. RESULTS: Content validity was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the presence of three initially assumed separate domains of publication pressure (i.e., personally experienced publication pressure, publication pressure in general, pressure on position of scientist). After exclusion of the third domain (six items), we performed exploratory factor analysis and IRT. The goodness-of-fit statistics for the IRT assuming a single dimension were satisfactory when four items were removed, resulting in 14 items of the final PPQ. Correlations with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scales of the MBI were 0.34 and 0.31, respectively, supporting construct validity. Single test administration reliability lambda2 was 0.69 and 0.90 on the test scores and expected a posteriori scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PPQ seems a valid and reliable instrument to measure publication pressure among medical scientists.

Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) is a new, state-of-the-art assessment system for measuring patient-reported health and well-being of adults and children that has the potential to be more valid, reliable and responsive than existing PROMs. The PROMIS items can be administered in short forms or, more efficiently, through computerized adaptive testing. This paper describes the translation of 563 items from 17 PROMIS item banks (domains) for adults from the English source into Dutch-Flemish. METHODS: The translation was performed by FACITtrans using standardized methodology and approved by the PROMIS Statistical Center. The translation included four forward translations, two back-translations, three to five independent reviews (at least two Dutch, one Flemish) and pre-testing in 70 adults (age range 20-77) from the Netherlands and Flanders. RESULTS: A small number of items required separate translations for Dutch and Flemish: physical function (five items), pain behaviour (two items), pain interference (one item), social isolation (one item) and global health (one item). Challenges faced in the translation process included: scarcity or overabundance of possible translations, unclear item descriptions, constructs broader/smaller in the target language, difficulties in rank ordering items, differences in unit of measurement, irrelevant items or differences in performance of activities. By addressing these challenges, acceptable translations were obtained for all items. CONCLUSION: The methodology used and experience gained in this study can be used as an example for researchers in other countries interested in translating PROMIS. The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS items are linguistically equivalent. Short forms will soon be available for use and entire item banks are ready for cross-cultural validation in the Netherlands and Flanders.