Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35675952›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open diabetes research & care2022

Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes.

Ellen B M Elsman, Lidwine B Mokkink, Marlous Langendoen-Gort, Femke Rutters, Joline Beulens, Petra J M Elders, Caroline B Terwee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. 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. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors.

Ellen B M ElsmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0680-6430
Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marlous Langendoen-GortDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke RuttersDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Joline BeulensDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6788-5232
Petra J M EldersAmsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands cb.terwee@amsterdamumc.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to systematically assess the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning, one of the core outcomes, in adults with type 2 diabetes.We performed a systematic literature search for PROMs or subscales measuring physical function that were validated to at least some extent in EMBASE and MEDLINE. Measurement properties were evaluated according to the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.In total 21 articles were included, describing 12 versions of 7 unique diabetes-specific PROMs or subscales measuring physical functioning. In general, there were few high-quality studies on measurement properties of PROMs measuring physical functioning in adults with type 2 diabetes. The Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the Diabetic Foot Ulcer Scale-Short Form (DFS-SF) and the Impact of Weight on Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire (IWADL) were most extensively evaluated. Both had sufficient ratings for aspects of content validity, although with mostly very low-quality evidence. Sufficient ratings for structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability were also found for both instruments, but responsiveness was rated inconsistent for both instruments. The other PROMs or subscales often had insufficient aspects of content validity, or their unidimensionality could not be confirmed.This systematic review showed that the Dependence/Daily Life subscale of the DFS-SF and the IWADL could be used to measure physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes in research or clinical practice, while keeping the limitations of these instruments in mind. The measurement properties that have not been evaluated extensively for these PROMs should be evaluated in future studies.The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database, number CRD42021234890.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresActivities of Daily LivingAdultHumansQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsCOSMINdiabetespatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)physical functioningsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35675952
PMCPMC9185403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.