COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

C A C Prinsen, L B Mokkink, L M Bouter, J Alonso, D L Patrick, H C W de Vet, C B Terwee, C A C Prinsen, L B Mokkink, L M Bouter, J Alonso, D L Patrick, H C W de Vet, C B Terwee

Abstract

Purpose: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs.

Methods: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs.

Results: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review.

Conclusions: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.

Keywords: COSMIN; Measurement properties; Methodology; Outcome measurement instrument; Outcome measures; PROM; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Ten steps for conducting a systematic review of PROMs

References

    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2009). Guidance for Industry. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. . Accessed 7 Jan 2018.
    1. Griffiths C, Armstrong-James L, White P, Rumsey N, Pleat J, Harcourt D. A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in child and adolescent burn research. Burns. 2015;41(2):212–224. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2014.07.018.
    1. Hermans H, van der Pas FH, Evenhuis HM. Instruments assessing anxiety in adults with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2011;32(3):861–870. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.034.
    1. Keage M, Delatycki M, Corben L, Vogel A. A systematic review of self-reported swallowing assessments in progressive neurological disorders. Dysphagia. 2015;30(1):27–46. doi: 10.1007/s00455-014-9579-9.
    1. Ritmala-Castren M, Lakanmaa RL, Virtanen I, Leino-Kilpi H. Evaluating adult patients’ sleep: An integrative literature review in critical care. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences. 2014;28(3):435–448. doi: 10.1111/scs.12072.
    1. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) database of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Amsterdam. . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Terwee CB, Prinsen CA, Ricci Garotti MG, Suman A, de Vet HC, Mokkink LB. The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(4):767–779. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4.
    1. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) website. . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) – user manual. .
    1. Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A., Chiarotto, A., de Vet, H. C., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs – user manual. .
    1. Collins NJ, Prinsen CA, Christensen R, Bartels EM, Terwee CB, Roos EM. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): Systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1317–1329. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2016.03.010.
    1. Gerbens LA, Prinsen CA, Chalmers JR, Drucker AM, von Kobyletzki LB, Limpens J, Nankervis H, Svensson Å, Terwee CB, Zhang J, Apfelbacher CJ, Spuls PI, Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative Reporting of symptoms in randomized controlled trials of atopic eczema treatments: A systematic review. British Journal of Dermatology. 2016;175(4):678–686. doi: 10.1111/bjd.14588.
    1. Chinapaw MJ, Mokkink LB, van Poppel MN, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for youth: A systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Medicine. 2010;40(7):539–563. doi: 10.2165/11530770-000000000-00000.
    1. Speksnijder CM, Koppenaal T, Knottnerus JA, Spigt M, Staal JB, Terwee CB. Measurement properties of the quebec back pain disability scale in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Systematic review. Physical Theraphy. 2016;96(11):1816–1831. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20140478.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research. 2012;21(4):651–657. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2010;10:22. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Riphagen I, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2009;18(3):313–333. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9.
    1. Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2017). COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. (Submitted to Quality of Life Research).
    1. Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” - A practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):449. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2.
    1. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration (2011). . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. (2013). . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. (2016). . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., & Morton, S. (Eds.). (2011). Institute of Medicine; Board on Health Care Services; Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from .
    1. GRADE Handbook. (2013). Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. . Accessed 5 Feb 2018.
    1. Elbers RG, Rietberg MB, van Wegen EE, Verhoef J, Kramer SF, Terwee CB, Kwakkel G. Self-report fatigue questionnaires in multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and stroke: A systematic review of measurement properties. Quality of Life Research. 2012;21(6):925–944. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0009-2.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19(4):539–549. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.
    1. Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2009;18(8):1115–1123. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.
    1. Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2017). COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(7):737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
    1. Fayers PM, Hand DJ, Bjordal K, Groenvold M. Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research. 1997;6(5):393–406. doi: 10.1023/A:1018491512095.
    1. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1993;78:98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98.
    1. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers; 2000.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2003;56(5):395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: Distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.
    1. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Quality of Life Research. 2007;16(1):131–142. doi: 10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Yost KJ, Eton DT, Garcia SF, Cella D. Minimally important differences were estimated for six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system-cancer scales in advanced-stage cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(5):507–516. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.11.018.
    1. van Kampen DA, Willems WJ, van Beers LW, Castelein RM, Scholtes VA, Terwee CB. Determination and comparison of the smallest detectable change (SDC) and the minimal important change (MIC) of four-shoulder patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 2013;8:40. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-8-40.
    1. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Handbook. (2017). . Accessed 7 Jan 2018.
    1. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. British Medical Journal. 1995;311(7001):376–380. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376.
    1. Chiarotto A, Ostelo RW, Boers M, Terwee CB. A systematic review highlights the need to investigate the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures for physical functioning in low back pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017;S0895–S4356(17):30543–30547.
    1. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren