Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

Autor: Elsman EBM; Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.; Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada., Mokkink LB; Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Abma IL; IQ Health, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Aiyegbusi OL; Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK., Chiarotto A; Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands., Haywood KL; Warwick Applied Health, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK., Matvienko-Sikar K; School of Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland., Oosterveer DM; Basalt, Leiden/The Hague, The Netherlands., Pool JJM; University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands., Swinkels-Meewisse IEJ; Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands., Offringa M; Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada., Terwee CB; Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. cb.terwee@amsterdamumc.nl.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation [Qual Life Res] 2024 Jul 03. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 03.
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-024-03706-z
Abstrakt: 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.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: