Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19238586›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2009

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed, 29 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

89 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Evaluating the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measurements for urolithiasis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. A systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for use in patients with foot or ankle diseases.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017
    Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.mokkink@vumc.nl
Caroline B Terwee
Paul W Stratford
Jordi Alonso
Donald L Patrick
Ingrid Riphagen
Dirk L Knol
Lex M Bouter
Henrica C W de Vet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansInfantMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID19238586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.