Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26346986›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2016

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

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 23 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient reported outcome and experience measures among patients with central venous access devices: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Needs assessment instruments for family caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  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. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

6 authors.

C B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. cb.terwee@vumc.nl.
C A C PrinsenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M G Ricci GarottiDepartment of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
A SumanDepartment of Public Health and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H C W de VetDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsA 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.

conclusionDespite 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.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CarePatient Outcome AssessmentReview Literature as TopicChecklistHumansQuality of LifeResearchMeasurement propertiesOutcome measurement instrumentsReliabilitySystematic reviewValidity

Identifiers

PMID26346986
PMCPMC4830864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.