Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35652989›Full record

ReviewJournal of patient-reported outcomes2022

Quality of patient- and proxy-reported outcomes for children with impairment of the upper extremity: a systematic review using the COSMIN methodology.

J P Ruben Kalle, Tim F F Saris, Inger N Sierevelt, Denise Eygendaal, Christiaan J A van Bergen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Agreement between patient- and proxy-reported outcome measures in adult musculoskeletal trauma and injury: a scoping review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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.

J P Ruben KalleUtrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands. jprkallepub@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3016-288X
Tim F F SarisAmphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818CK, Breda, The Netherlands.
Inger N SiereveltStichting SCORE, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101AE, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Denise EygendaalErasmus MC, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Christiaan J A van BergenAmphia Hospital, Molengracht 21, 4818CK, Breda, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become of significant importance in patient evaluation, adequately selecting the appropriate instrument is an integral part of pediatric orthopedic research and clinical practice. This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of PROMs targeted at children with impairment of the upper limb, and critically appraises and summarizes the quality of their measurement properties by applying the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology.

methodsA systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed to identify relevant publications reporting on the development and/or validation of PROMs used for evaluating children with impairment of the upper extremity. Data extraction and quality assessment (including a risk of bias evaluation) of the included studies was undertaken by two reviewers independently and in accordance with COSMIN guidelines.

resultsOut of 6423 screened publications, 32 original articles were eligible for inclusion in this review, reporting evidence on the measurement properties of 22 self- and/or proxy-reported questionnaires (including seven cultural adaptations) for various pediatric orthopedic conditions, including cerebral palsy (CP) and obstetric brachial plexus palsy (OBPP). The measurement property most frequently evaluated was construct validity. No studies evaluating content validity and only four PROM development studies were included. The methodological quality of these development studies was either 'doubtful' or 'inadequate'. The quantity and quality of the evidence on the other measurement properties of the included questionnaires varied substantially with insufficient sample sizes and/or poor methodological quality resulting in significant downgrading of evidence quality.

conclusionThis review provides a comprehensive overview of currently available PROMs for evaluation of the pediatric upper limb. Based on our findings, none of the PROMs demonstrated sufficient evidence on their measurement properties to justify recommending the use of these instruments. These findings provide room for validation studies on existing pediatric orthopedic upper limb PROMs (especially on content validity), and/or the development of new instruments.

Indexed as

COSMINMeasurement propertiesPediatric orthopedicsReview (publication type)Upper extremity

Identifiers

PMID35652989
PMCPMC9163282

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.