Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35349122›Full record

SynthesisSpine deformity2022

Evaluating measures of quality of life in adult scoliosis: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

James E Archer, Charles Baird, Adrian Gardner, Alison B Rushton, Nicola R Heneghan

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Spine deformity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

James E ArcherThe Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7329-2401
Charles BairdThe Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6351-7208
Adrian GardnerThe Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2AP, UK. adrian.gardner@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0001-6532-7950
Alison B RushtonSchool of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8114-7669
Nicola R HeneghanCentre of Precision Rehabilitation for Spinal Pain (CPR Spine), School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7599-3674
Royal Orthopaedic Hospital · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review and synthesise the evidence on the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) used to assess the quality of life in patients with adult scoliosis.

methodBased on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines and a published protocol, a two-stage search was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Stage one identified all studies of patients with adult scoliosis which included PROMs of health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and Pubmed were searched from inception until 31st December 2020. This derived list of PROMs, was then utilised for a stage 2 search to identify studies which evaluated the measurement properties of the PROMs. Two reviewers independently performed the searches, study screening, selection and risk of bias assessment using the COSMIN tool. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

resultsStage one yielded 16 PROMs of HR-QOL with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) the most used. Stage two identified three stage one PROMs that fulfilled eligibility criteria: SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r; with five studies investigating measurement properties in an adult scoliosis population. The SRS-22 was the most comprehensively evaluated PROM in this cohort with very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate reliability, sufficient construct validity and sufficient responsiveness of the SRS-22. There is very low-quality evidence indicating sufficient responsiveness of the ODI. There is very low-quality evidence indicating indeterminate cross-cultural validity for the SRS-22r. All other measurement properties in the SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r have not been evaluated.

conclusionA large number of PROMs are being utilised in the adult scoliosis population and of these, the most commonly utilised are the ODI and SRS-22. The SRS-22, ODI and SRS-22r are the only PROMs to have had their measurement properties evaluated in the adult scoliosis population. The findings of this systematic review are that there currently is not sufficient evidence on the measurement properties of any PROMs in adult scoliosis. Further research is now urgently required to assess the measurement properties of these PROMs.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeScoliosisAdultConsensusHumansReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAdult scoliosisHealth-related quality of lifeMeasurement propertiesPatient-reported outcome measuresSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35349122
OpenAlexW4220822834

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.