ReviewEye (London, England)2026
Systematic review of eyecare Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) following COSMIN guidelines.
Review in Eye (London, England), 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
Abstract
Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are essential for assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. However, their use in eyecare is limited. This systematic review aimed to assess the existing evidence on the measurement properties of PREMs used to capture patient experiences of eyecare services. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies reporting the development and/or psychometric evaluation of PREMs in eyecare. The extracted measurement properties encompassed information on item development, content validity (the extent to which items are relevant, comprehensive, and understandable), structural validity (whether the items form the right scales), internal consistency (how well items measure underlying eyecare experience domains), cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Quality assessment, evaluation of measurement properties, evidence synthesis, and grading followed COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews. Thirteen studies were included, three of which evaluated 10 distinct PREMs, across settings, including low vision and primary/secondary eyecare. All ten PREMs met criteria for COSMIN Category B (potentially recommended, further validation needed). However, most lacked sufficient evidence for content validity and lacked supporting evidence for structural validity. None demonstrated adequate reliability, and none reported using Item Response Theory or Rasch Measurement Theory. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to classify any of the identified PREMs into COSMIN recommendation Category A (recommended for use). Future studies on PREMs in eyecare should aim to strengthen the evidence for content and structural validity and provide robust proof of their reliability.
Identifiers
42834130What 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.