Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37902914›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review.

Katharina Piontek, Michaela Gabes, Gesina Kann, Marie Fechtner, Christian Apfelbacher

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A COSMIN systematic review of generic patient-reported outcome measures in Switzerland.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Katharina PiontekInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. katharina.piontek@med.ovgu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2667-6741
Michaela GabesInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Gesina KannInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Marie FechtnerInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Christian ApfelbacherInstitute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo conduct a systematic review of the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary dysmenorrhea (PDys) using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, and to derive recommendations for use of the PROMs.

methodsWe searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for women with PDys. Applying the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist, we assessed the methodological quality of each included study. We further evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study according to the criteria for good measurement properties, and graded the evidence. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for the use of the included PROMs.

resultsData from seven studies reporting on four PROMs addressing different outcomes were included. Among those, the Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self-Care Scale (ADSCS) and the on-menses version of the Dysmenorrhea Symptom Interference Scale (DSI) can be recommended for use. The Exercise of Self-Care Agency Scale (ESCAS) and the Dysmenorrhea Daily Diary (DysDD) have the potential to be recommended for use, but require further validation. The off-menses version of the DSI cannot be recommended for use.

conclusionsThe ADSCS can be recommended for the assessment of self-care behavior in PDys. Regarding measures of impact, the on-menses version of the DSI is a suitable tool. Covering the broadest spectrum of outcomes, the DysDD is promising for use in medical care and research, encouraging further investigations. Further validation studies are indicated for all included PROMs.

Indexed as

DysmenorrheaQuality of LifeAdolescentFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesPatient-reported outcome measuresPrimary dysmenorrheaPsychometric propertiesQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID37902914
PMCPMC10784326
OpenAlexW4388023420

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.