Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments

被引:143
|
作者
Mokkink, Lidwine B. [1 ]
Terwee, Caroline B. [1 ]
Stratford, Paul W. [2 ,3 ]
Alonso, Jordi [4 ,5 ]
Patrick, Donald L. [6 ]
Riphagen, Ingrid [7 ,8 ]
Knol, Dirk L. [1 ]
Bouter, Lex M. [1 ,9 ]
de Vet, Henrica C. W. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, EMGO Inst Hlth & Care Res, Dept Epidemiol & Biostat, NL-1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] McMaster Univ, Sch Rehabil Sci, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7, Canada
[3] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hamilton, ON L8S 1C7, Canada
[4] Hosp del Mar, IMIM, Hlth Serv Res Unit, Barcelona 08003, Spain
[5] CIBERESP, Barcelona, Spain
[6] Univ Washington, Dept Hlth Serv, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[7] Norwegian Univ Sci & Technol NTNU, Fac Med, Unit Appl Clin Res, Trondheim, Norway
[8] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Med Ctr, Univ Lib, NL-1081 BT Amsterdam, Netherlands
[9] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Execut Board, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
Systematic review; Measurement properties; Methodological quality; Health status; OF-LIFE INSTRUMENTS; PATIENT-ASSESSED HEALTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENTS; REPORT OUTCOME MEASURES; NONVERBAL OLDER-ADULTS; MOTOR FUNCTION-TESTS; CEREBRAL-PALSY; RHEUMATIC DISORDERS; PALLIATIVE CARE;
D O I
10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
A systematic review of measurement properties of health-status instruments is a tool for evaluating the quality of instruments. Our aim was to appraise the quality of the review process, to describe how authors assess the methodological quality of primary studies of measurement properties, and to describe how authors evaluate results of the studies. Literature searches were performed in three databases. One hundred and forty-eight reviews were included. The purpose of included reviews was to identify health status instruments used in an evaluative application and to report on the measurement properties of these instruments. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. Reviews were often of low quality: 22% of the reviews used one database, the search strategy was often poorly described, and in many cases it was not reported whether article selection (75%) and data extraction (71%) was done by two independent reviewers. In 11 reviews the methodological quality of the primary studies was evaluated for all measurement properties, and of these 11 reviews only 7 evaluated the results. Methods to evaluate the quality of the primary studies and the results differed widely. The poor quality of reviews hampers evidence-based selection of instruments. Guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of measurement properties should be developed.
引用
收藏
页码:313 / 333
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments
    Lidwine B. Mokkink
    Caroline B. Terwee
    Paul W. Stratford
    Jordi Alonso
    Donald L. Patrick
    Ingrid Riphagen
    Dirk L. Knol
    Lex M. Bouter
    Henrica C. W. de Vet
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2009, 18 : 313 - 333
  • [2] Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews
    Elsman, Ellen B. M.
    Mokkink, Lidwine B.
    Abma, Inger L.
    Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
    Chiarotto, Alessandro
    Haywood, Kirstie L.
    Matvienko-Sikar, Karen
    Oosterveer, Daniella M.
    Pool, Jan J. M.
    Swinkels-Meewisse, Ilse E. J.
    Offringa, Martin
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [3] The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments
    Terwee, C. B.
    Prinsen, C. A. C.
    Garotti, M. G. Ricci
    Suman, A.
    de Vet, H. C. W.
    Mokkink, L. B.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2016, 25 (04) : 767 - 779
  • [4] The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments
    C. B. Terwee
    C. A. C. Prinsen
    M. G. Ricci Garotti
    A. Suman
    H. C. W. de Vet
    L. B. Mokkink
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2016, 25 : 767 - 779
  • [5] The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Prinsen, Cecilia A.
    Garotti, Maria G. Ricci
    Suman, Arnela
    de Vet, Henrica C.
    Mokkink, Lidwine B.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2015, 24 : 116 - 116
  • [6] Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
    Beverley J Shea
    Jeremy M Grimshaw
    George A Wells
    Maarten Boers
    Neil Andersson
    Candyce Hamel
    Ashley C Porter
    Peter Tugwell
    David Moher
    Lex M Bouter
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7
  • [7] Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
    Shea, Beverley J.
    Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
    Wells, George A.
    Boers, Maarten
    Andersson, Neil
    Hamel, Candyce
    Porter, Ashley C.
    Tugwell, Peter
    Moher, David
    Bouter, Lex M.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2007, 7 (1)
  • [8] The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study
    Lidwine B. Mokkink
    Caroline B. Terwee
    Donald L. Patrick
    Jordi Alonso
    Paul W. Stratford
    Dirk L. Knol
    Lex M. Bouter
    Henrica C. W. de Vet
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2010, 19 : 539 - 549
  • [9] The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study
    Mokkink, Lidwine B.
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Patrick, Donald L.
    Alonso, Jordi
    Stratford, Paul W.
    Knol, Dirk L.
    Bouter, Lex M.
    de Vet, Henrica C. W.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2010, 19 (04) : 539 - 549
  • [10] Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews
    Welsh, Emma J.
    Normansell, Rebecca A.
    Cates, Christopher J.
    [J]. NPJ PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 2015, 25