Ellen B M Elsman, Lidwine B Mokkink, Inger L Abma, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Alessandro Chiarotto, Kirstie L Haywood, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Daniella M Oosterveer, Jan J M Pool, Ilse E J Swinkels-Meewisse, Martin Offringa, Caroline B Terwee
{"title":"Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.","authors":"Ellen B M Elsman, Lidwine B Mokkink, Inger L Abma, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi, Alessandro Chiarotto, Kirstie L Haywood, Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Daniella M Oosterveer, Jan J M Pool, Ilse E J Swinkels-Meewisse, Martin Offringa, Caroline B Terwee","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03706-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03706-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.
Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.
Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.
Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.
期刊介绍：
Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences.
Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership.
This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
