Dataset Information

Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Whiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, there is no consensus on the most relevant outcome domains and their corresponding measurement instruments of choice. This systematic review aims to identify, describe, and critically appraise the performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash population.

Methods

The following literature databases will be searched from their date of establishment: PubMed, Embase®, MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, and HAPI. All original articles evaluating the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and feasibility of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash will be included, without additional restriction on their intended use, source of data, and structure. Risk of bias will be assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Findings of the studies will be judged against the criteria for good measurement properties, and results from all studies will be qualitatively summarized to generate an overall quality of findings. Overall quality of evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE approach, which will be used in conjunction with the overall quality of results for generation of recommendations. Two reviewers will perform all steps of the review independently. Discrepancies will be discussed between the reviewers, and in case of remaining disagreement, the senior reviewer will make the final decision.

Discussion

This systematic review will summarize the body of literature on health-related measurement instruments in whiplash, aiming to facilitate the selection of high-quality measurement instrument for researchers and physicians. Findings of this study will guide the ongoing efforts for development of a core outcome set.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.

SUBMITTER: Abedi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6688369 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol.

Abedi Aidin A Prinsen C A C CAC Shah Ishan I Buser Zorica Z Wang Jeffrey C JC

Systematic reviews 20190809 1

<h4>Background</h4>Whiplash is a common traumatic cervical injury which is most often a consequence of rear-end motor vehicle accidents. It has been estimated that up to 50% of the whiplash patients suffer from chronic symptoms, resulting in extensive individual and societal burden. Several measurement instruments are used for initial assessment of whiplash and evaluation of response to treatment. However, a comprehensive assessment of the performance of these measures is lacking. Furthermore, t ...[more]

PMID: 31399055

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe internet is now a major source of health information. With the growth of internet users, eHealth literacy has emerged as a new concept for digital health care. Therefore, health professionals need to consider the eHealth literacy of consumers when providing care utilizing digital health technologies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify currently available eHealth literacy instruments and evaluate their measurement properties to provide robust evidence to researchers and clinicians who are selecting an eHealth literacy instrument.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-reported eHealth literacy instruments by applying the updated COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) methodology.ResultsThis study included 7 instruments from 41 articles describing 57 psychometric studies, as identified in 4 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo). No eHealth literacy instrument provided evidence for all measurement properties. The eHealth literacy scale (eHEALS) was originally developed with a single-factor structure under the definition of eHealth literacy before the rise of social media and the mobile web. That instrument was evaluated in 18 different languages and 26 countries, involving diverse populations. However, various other factor structures were exhibited: 7 types of two-factor structures, 3 types of three-factor structures, and 1 bifactor structure. The transactional eHealth literacy instrument (TeHLI) was developed to reflect the broader concept of eHealth literacy and was demonstrated to have a sufficient low-quality and very low-quality evidence for content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility) and sufficient high-quality evidence for structural validity and internal consistency; however, that instrument has rarely been evaluated.ConclusionsThe eHealth literacy scale was the most frequently investigated instrument. However, it is strongly recommended that the instrument's content be updated to reflect recent advancements in digital health technologies. In addition, the transactional eHealth literacy instrument needs improvements in content validity and further psychometric studies to increase the credibility of its synthesized evidence.

Project description:IntroductionOver the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348.

Project description:Society has been increasingly concerned about the impact of pain on farm animal welfare. This systematic review aims to provide evidence relating to the measurement properties (i.e. reliability, validity, and sensitivity) of pain scoring instruments used for pain assessment in farm animals. A literature search will be performed using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CAB abstracts and Biological Abstracts) and search terms related to pain, pain scales and different species of farm animals. Eligibility criteria will include full-text studies on the development and/or validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments for farm animals including bovine (beef and dairy), ovine, caprine, camel, swine and poultry. Exclusion criteria will include studies that report the use of pain scales for the validation of another instrument, or those reporting ethograms/list of behaviors potentially indicating pain without a scoring system. Study titles and their abstracts will be screened for eligibility by one investigator. Full-text articles will be independently reviewed for eligibility and evaluated by two investigators. Relevant information will be recorded and evaluated systematically according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist using an adapted data collection sheet. The following measurement properties and characteristics of the instruments will be assessed: content validity (internal consistency, structural and cross-cultural validity), reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability and feasibility. Following the assessment of methodological quality and quality of the findings, evidence for each measurement property will be summarized into high, moderate, low or very low. This systematic review will provide further insights into the evidence-based measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. It may identify possible gaps of knowledge with these tools as a potential target for future studies in farm animals with a positive impact on animal welfare.

Project description:Policy Points: Investigations on systematic methodologies for measuring integrated care should coincide with the growing interest in this field of research. A systematic review of instruments provides insights into integrated care measurement, including setting the research agenda for validating available instruments and informing the decision to develop new ones. This study is the first systematic review of instruments measuring integrated care with an evidence synthesis of the measurement properties. We found 209 index instruments measuring different constructs related to integrated care; the strength of evidence on the adequacy of the majority of their measurement properties remained largely unassessed.Integrated care is an important strategy for increasing health system performance. Despite its growing significance, detailed evidence on the measurement properties of integrated care instruments remains vague and limited. Our systematic review aims to provide evidence on the state of the art in measuring integrated care.Our comprehensive systematic review framework builds on the Rainbow Model for Integrated Care (RMIC). We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for published articles on the measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care and identified eligible articles using a standard set of selection criteria. We assessed the methodological quality of every validation study reported using the COSMIN checklist and extracted data on study and instrument characteristics. We also evaluated the measurement properties of each examined instrument per validation study and provided a best evidence synthesis on the adequacy of measurement properties of the index instruments.From the 300 eligible articles, we assessed the methodological quality of 379 validation studies from which we identified 209 index instruments measuring integrated care constructs. The majority of studies reported on instruments measuring constructs related to care integration (33%) and patient-centered care (49%); fewer studies measured care continuity/comprehensive care (15%) and care coordination/case management (3%). We mapped 84% of the measured constructs to the clinical integration domain of the RMIC, with fewer constructs related to the domains of professional (3.7%), organizational (3.4%), and functional (0.5%) integration. Only 8% of the instruments were mapped to a combination of domains; none were mapped exclusively to the system or normative integration domains. The majority of instruments were administered to either patients (60%) or health care providers (20%). Of the measurement properties, responsiveness (4%), measurement error (7%), and criterion (12%) and cross-cultural validity (14%) were less commonly reported. We found <50% of the validation studies to be of good or excellent quality for any of the measurement properties. Only a minority of index instruments showed strong evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (15%), content validity (19%), and structural validity (7%); with moderate evidence of positive findings for internal consistency (14%) and construct validity (14%).Our results suggest that the quality of measurement properties of instruments measuring integrated care is in need of improvement with the less-studied constructs and domains to become part of newly developed instruments.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last three decades, various instruments were developed and employed to assess medical professionalism, but their measurement properties have yet to be fully evaluated. This study aimed to systematically evaluate these instruments' measurement properties and the methodological quality of their related studies within a universally acceptable standardized framework and then provide corresponding recommendations.MethodsA systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was conducted to collect studies published from 1990-2015. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility, the articles included in this study were classified according to their respective instrument's usage. A two-phase assessment was conducted: 1) methodological quality was assessed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist; and 2) the quality of measurement properties was assessed according to Terwee's criteria. Results were integrated using best-evidence synthesis to look for recommendable instruments.ResultsAfter screening 2,959 records, 74 instruments from 80 existing studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was unsatisfactory, with reasons including but not limited to unknown missing data, inadequate sample sizes, and vague hypotheses. Content validity, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity were either unreported or negative ratings in most studies. Based on best-evidence synthesis, three instruments were recommended: Hisar's instrument for nursing students, Nurse Practitioners' Roles and Competencies Scale, and Perceived Faculty Competency Inventory.ConclusionAlthough instruments measuring medical professionalism are diverse, only a limited number of studies were methodologically sound. Future studies should give priority to systematically improving the performance of existing instruments and to longitudinal studies.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.PurposeTo identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.ResultsWe identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.ConclusionThe evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.

Dataset Information

Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Performance properties of health-related measurement instruments in whiplash: systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets