ArticleSystematic reviews2026
An evaluation of psychometric properties and utility of the Hope Index (HI): a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe number of positive psychological interventions, including hope interventions to foster well-being and decrease the huge burden of mental conditions, has exponentially increased. Consequently, the number of hope outcome measures has also increased. The Hope Index (HI) is an extensively used hope outcome measure, but the evidence of its psychometric performance is fragmented. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to critically appraise the psychometric properties of the Hope Index and assess its utility. METHODS/
designTwo independent and blinded reviewers will search articles in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ProQuest Dissertations, and Google Scholar. Thereafter, three independent reviewers will then screen the retrieved articles. The risk of bias across studies will then be evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of the psychometric properties will be rated using a pre-set criterion and, after that, synthesized using the modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) checklist. DISCUSSION: The proposed systematic review will appraise the collective evidence of the psychometric robustness of the HI. The review will also assist in identifying psychometrics that may require further evaluation and make recommendations on the feasibility and utility of the HI. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024511130.
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.