ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024
Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.
Review 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 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Exploring the Relationship Between Obesity, Weight Loss and Health-Related Quality of Life: An Updated Systematic Review of Reviews.Clinical obesity · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measurements for urolithiasis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Assessing Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Polyneuropathies, Focusing on Guillain-Barré Syndrome and Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.Journal of the peripheral nervous system : JPNS · 2025Pooled it
- The COSMIN Clubs initiative: improving health measurement through collaborative learning.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Assessing content validity: challenges of conducting systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures and recommendations to improve the application of COSMIN guidance.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Psychometric Properties of the Breast Cancer Awareness Measure (Breast-CAM): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2026Review
- Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): table templates for effective communication.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Current Challenges and New Strategies in Pediatric Short Bowel Syndrome: Focus on Surgical Aspects and Prevention of Complications.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSystematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.
methodsOne hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.
resultsA quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.
conclusionDespite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.