Dataset Information

Outcome measurement instruments for peripheral vascular malformations and an assessment of the measurement properties: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The Outcome measures for vascular malformation (OVAMA) group reached consensus on the core outcome domains for the core outcome set (COS) for peripheral vascular malformations (venous, lymphatic and arteriovenous malformations). However, it is unclear which instruments should be used to measure these domains. Therefore, our aims were to identify all outcome measurement instruments available for vascular malformations, and to evaluate their measurement properties. METHODS:With the first literature search, we identified outcomes and instruments previously used in prospective studies on vascular malformations. A second search yielded studies on measurement properties of patient- and physician-reported instruments that were either developed for vascular malformations, or used in prospective studies. If the latter instruments were not specifically validated for vascular malformations, we performed a third search for studies on measurement properties in clinically similar diseases (vascular or lymphatic diseases and benign tumors). We assessed the methodological quality of these studies following the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments methodology, and evaluated the quality of the measurement properties. RESULTS:The first search yielded 27 studies, none using disease-specific instruments. The second and third search included 22 development and/or validation studies, concerning six instruments. Only the Lymphatic Malformation Function Instrument was developed specifically for vascular malformations. Other instruments were generic QoL instruments developed and/or partly validated for clinically similar diseases. CONCLUSIONS:Additional research on measurement properties is needed to assess which instruments may be included in the COS. This review informs the instrument selection and/or the development of new instruments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO, 42017056242.

SUBMITTER: Horbach SER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6962285 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome measurement instruments for peripheral vascular malformations and an assessment of the measurement properties: a systematic review.

Horbach Sophie E R SER Rongen Amber P M APM Elbers Roy G RG van der Horst Chantal M A M CMAM Prinsen Cecilia A C CAC Spuls Phyllis I PI

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation 20190923 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>The Outcome measures for vascular malformation (OVAMA) group reached consensus on the core outcome domains for the core outcome set (COS) for peripheral vascular malformations (venous, lymphatic and arteriovenous malformations). However, it is unclear which instruments should be used to measure these domains. Therefore, our aims were to identify all outcome measurement instruments available for vascular malformations, and to evaluate their measurement properties.<h4>Methods</h4>W ...[more]

PMID: 31549367

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundA plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities.MethodsThis study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence.ResultsIn total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies.ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.

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: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:ImportanceMeasurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition.ObjectivesTo present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments.Evidence reviewThis systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key words delirium, severity, tests, measures, and intensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus.FindingsOf 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method-Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale.Conclusions and relevanceThe 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these 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:BackgroundWhiplash 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.MethodsThe 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.DiscussionThis 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 registrationPROSPERO reference number CRD42018070901.

Dataset Information

Outcome measurement instruments for peripheral vascular malformations and an assessment of the measurement properties: a systematic review.

Publications

Outcome measurement instruments for peripheral vascular malformations and an assessment of the measurement properties: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets