Erratum: Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality: Erratum.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7571986 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Erratum: Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality: Erratum.
Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20190924 5
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000002424.]. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8117375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe 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.MethodsWith 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAdditional 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 registrationPROSPERO, 42017056242.
| S-EPMC6962285 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the most frequently used atrial fibrillation-specific quality of life (QoL) instruments across atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation studies and to perform a systematic review of the most frequently used instrument's measurement properties. This study uses quality of life instruments as an overarching term for any patient reported outcome measure that assesses a person's health related well-being, functional status, and disease related symptoms.MethodsA literature mapping exercise was undergone to identify the most frequently used AF-specific QoL instruments across AF ablation studies published from 2016 to 2021. A systematic review of the most frequently used AF QoL instruments identified from the mapping exercise was performed using the COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measurements. A systematic search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL. The search used variations of the keywords "atrial fibrillation", "quality of life", and "catheter ablation".ResultsForty-five instruments were identified via the literature mapping exercise. After excluding non-patient reported outcome instruments, non-AF specific instruments, and instruments appearing only once, six instruments were identified: AF Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT), AF Severity Scale, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Instrument, AF Quality of Life Instrument, Arrhythmia Specific instrument in Tachycardia and Arrhythmia (ASTA), and SCL (Arrhythmia Symptom Checklist, Frequency and Severity). A systematic review of these six AF-specific health related QoL instruments was performed. We screened 3221 articles and 17 studies were eligible for inclusion. Using the COSMIN guidelines, ASTA and AFEQT had the best ratings across measurement properties with both instruments having good ratings for instrument development and internal consistency. However, none of the 17 included articles assessed measurement error and cross-cultural validity.ConclusionsAFEQT and ASTA had the strongest measurement properties but not all measurement properties were assessed. Considering the large number of indeterminate and insufficient ratings, future research should focus on cross-cultural validation, measurement error, responsiveness, and interpretability. This review summarizes the current evidence for AF QoL instruments across AF ablation studies and outlines areas for future research.
| S-EPMC9575307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: We have updated knowledge of the psychometric qualities of patient-reported outcome measures and, for the first time, systematically reviewed and compared the psychometric qualities of physical tests for patients with knee osteoarthritis who are undergoing total knee arthroplasty. This work was conducted to facilitate the choice of the most appropriate instruments to use in studies and clinical practice. (2) Methods: A search of medical databases up to December 2019 identified the studies and thus the instruments used. The quality of the measurement properties was assessed by the Bot et al. criteria. (3) Results: We identified 20 studies involving 25 instruments. Half of the instruments were questionnaires (n = 13). Among the condition-specific instruments, the Oxford knee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index had the highest overall scores. Concerning generic tools, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) or SF-12 obtained the highest overall score. For patient-specific tools, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ranked the highest. Some physical tests seemed robust in psychometric properties: 6-min Walk Test, five times Sit-To-Stand test, Timed Up and Go test strength testing of knee flexor/extensor by isometric or isokinetic dynamometer and Pressure Pain Threshold. (4) Conclusion: To make stronger recommendations, key areas such as reproducibility, responsiveness to clinical change, and minimal important change still need more rigorous evaluations. Some promising physical tests (e.g., actimetry) lack validation and require rigorous studies to be used as a core set of outcomes in future studies.
| S-EPMC7463550 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8663713 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5640043 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5192798 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimThe aim of this study was to summarize and evaluate the empirical evidence on the measurement properties of diaper dermatitis (DD) measurement instruments in children.DesignSystematic review.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were systematically searched until 14 June 2021. Citation searching was conducted in Scopus. The risk of bias, the reported measurement properties and the quality of evidence were evaluated using the COSMIN framework. The reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement.ResultsWe identified 1200 records in the databases and 108 records during citation searching and included four studies describing three measurement instruments for DD in children and their measurement properties. We considered the content validity inconsistent for all three instruments. The study authors reported internal consistency, reliability and construct validity for one instrument. We rated the quality of evidence from very low to moderate.
| S-EPMC10416076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:The aim of the present study was to identify systematically the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome instruments (PROs) that evaluate adherence to inhaled maintenance medication in adults with asthma. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review of six databases. Two reviewers independently included studies on the measurement properties of PROs that evaluated adherence in asthmatic participants aged ≥18 years. Based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN), the reviewers: (i) extracted data on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, structural validity, hypotheses testing, cross-cultural validity, criterion validity and responsiveness; (ii) assessed the methodological quality of the included studies; (iii) assessed the quality of the measurement properties (positive or negative); and (iv) summarized the level of evidence (limited, moderate or strong). RESULTS:We screened 6068 records and included 15 studies (14 PROs). No studies evaluated measurement error or responsiveness. Based on methodological and measurement property quality assessments, we found limited positive evidence of: (i) internal consistency of the Adherence Questionnaire, Refined Medication Adherence Reason (MAR) scale, Medication Adherence Report Scale for Asthma (MARS-A) and Test of the Adherence to Inhalers (TAI); (ii) reliability of the TAI; and (iii) structural validity of the adherence questionnaire, MAR scale, MARS-A and TAI. We also found limited negative evidence of: (i) hypotheses testing of the Adherence Questionnaire; (ii) reliability of the MARS-A; and (iii) criterion validity of the MARS-A and TAI. CONCLUSIONS:Our results highlighted the need to conduct further high-quality studies to evaluate the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the available PROs.
| S-EPMC6089817 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC6382582 | biostudies-literature