Cargando…
Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review
OBJECTIVE: This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Meta-review. METHODS: Electronic...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422655/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32788186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 |
_version_ | 1783570045793730560 |
---|---|
author | Lorente, Sonia Viladrich, Carme Vives, Jaume Losilla, Josep-Maria |
author_facet | Lorente, Sonia Viladrich, Carme Vives, Jaume Losilla, Josep-Maria |
author_sort | Lorente, Sonia |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Meta-review. METHODS: Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. RESULTS: A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065232. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7422655 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74226552020-08-19 Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review Lorente, Sonia Viladrich, Carme Vives, Jaume Losilla, Josep-Maria BMJ Open Qualitative Research OBJECTIVE: This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews. DESIGN: Meta-review. METHODS: Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. RESULTS: A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065232. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7422655/ /pubmed/32788186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Qualitative Research Lorente, Sonia Viladrich, Carme Vives, Jaume Losilla, Josep-Maria Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title | Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title_full | Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title_fullStr | Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title_full_unstemmed | Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title_short | Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
title_sort | tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review |
topic | Qualitative Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7422655/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32788186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lorentesonia toolstoassessthemeasurementpropertiesofqualityoflifeinstrumentsametareview AT viladrichcarme toolstoassessthemeasurementpropertiesofqualityoflifeinstrumentsametareview AT vivesjaume toolstoassessthemeasurementpropertiesofqualityoflifeinstrumentsametareview AT losillajosepmaria toolstoassessthemeasurementpropertiesofqualityoflifeinstrumentsametareview |