Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27534620›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2016

A systematic review to investigate the measurement properties of goal attainment scaling, towards use in drug trials.

Charlotte M W Gaasterland, Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide, Stephanie S Weinreich, Johanna H van der Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte M W GaasterlandPediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands. c.m.gaasterland@amc.uva.nl.
Marijke C Jansen-van der WeidePediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Stephanie S WeinreichPediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Johanna H van der LeePediatric clinical Research Office, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105, AZ, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the main challenges for drug evaluation in rare diseases is the often heterogeneous course of these diseases. Traditional outcome measures may not be applicable for all patients, when they are in different stages of their disease. For instance, in Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, the Six Minute Walk Test is often used to evaluate potential new treatments, whereas this outcome is irrelevant for patients who are already in a wheelchair. A measurement instrument such as Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) can evaluate the effect of an intervention on an individual basis, and may be able to include patients even when they are in different stages of their disease. It allows patients to set individual goals, together with their treating professional. However, the validity of GAS as a measurement instrument in drug studies has never been systematically reviewed. Therefore, we have performed a systematic review to answer two questions: 1. Has GAS been used as a measurement instrument in drug studies? 2: What is known of the validity, responsiveness and inter- and intra-rater reliability of GAS, particularly in drug trials?

methodsWe set up a sensitive search that yielded 3818 abstracts. After careful screening, data-extraction was executed for 58 selected articles.

resultsOf the 58 selected articles, 38 articles described drug studies where GAS was used as an outcome measure, and 20 articles described measurement properties of GAS in other settings. The results show that validity, responsiveness and reliability of GAS in drug studies have hardly been investigated. The quality of the reporting of validity in studies in which GAS was used to evaluate a non-drug intervention also leaves much room for improvement.

conclusionsWe conclude that there is insufficient information to assess the validity of GAS, due to the poor quality of the validity studies. Therefore, we think that GAS needs further validation in drug studies, especially since GAS can be a potential solution when a small heterogeneous patient group is all there is to test a promising new drug.

trial registrationThe protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register for systematic reviews, with registration number CRD42014010619. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014010619 .

Indexed as

GoalsSurveys and QuestionnairesDrug EvaluationDrug MonitoringHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsDrug trialsGoal attainment scalingRare diseasesSystematic reviewValidation

Identifiers

PMID27534620
PMCPMC4989379
OpenAlexW2512421561

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.