SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Measurement properties of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTraumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury impact all areas of individuals' quality of life. A synthesis of available evidence for the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life (TBI-QoL) and Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life (SCI-QoL) measurement systems could inform evidence-based clinical practice and research. Thus, we aimed to systematically review the literature of existing evidence on the measurement properties of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL among rehabilitation populations.
methodsWe used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework for evaluating measures to guide this systematic review. We searched nine electronic databases and registries, and hand-searched reference lists of included articles. Two independent reviewers screened selected articles and extracted the data. We used COSMIN's thresholds to synthesize measurement properties evidence (insufficient, sufficient), and the modified GRADE approach to synthesize evidence quality (very-low, low, moderate, high).
resultsWe included 16 studies for SCI-QoL and 14 studies for TBI-QoL. Both measurement systems have sufficient content validity, structural validity, internal consistency and construct validity across nearly all domains (GRADE: high). Most SCI-QoL domains and some TBI-QoL domains have sufficient evidence of cross-cultural validity and test-retest reliability (GRADE: moderate-high). Besides the cognition domains of TBI-QoL, which have indeterminate evidence for measurement error and sufficient evidence for responsiveness (GRADE: high), there is no additional evidence available for these measurement properties.
conclusionRehabilitation researchers and clinicians can use SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL to describe and evaluate patients. Further evidence of measurement error, responsiveness, and predictive validity would advance the use and interpretation of SCI-QoL and TBI-QoL in rehabilitation.
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.