Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31218671›Full record

SynthesisHealth services research2019

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.

Claudia Bull, Joshua Byrnes, Ruvini Hettiarachchi, Martin Downes

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

Synthesis in Health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 168 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
168citing papers in PubMed, 20 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

168 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Claudia BullCentre for Applied Health Economics (CAHE), Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4064-652X
Joshua ByrnesCentre for Applied Health Economics (CAHE), Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ruvini HettiarachchiCentre for Applied Health Economics (CAHE), Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Martin DownesCentre for Applied Health Economics (CAHE), Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3617-5307

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. DATA SOURCES/STUDY

settingArticles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. STUDY

designSystematic review. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION

methodsCritical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. PRINCIPAL

findingsEighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests.

conclusionsCareful consideration should be given when selecting PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaireshealth care organization and systemsreliabilitysurvey research and questionnaire designsystematic reviews/meta-analysesvalidity

Identifiers

PMID31218671
PMCPMC6736915

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.