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":"近期 100 篇关于健康相关结果测量工具的系统性综述的方法学质量：综述。","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":" ","pages":"2593-2609"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452433/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2593-2609\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452433/pdf/\",\"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\":\"2024/7/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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":"2024/7/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：评估和比较结果测量工具（OMI）测量特性的系统综述在 OMI 选择中发挥着重要作用。早期的综述质量（2007 年、2014 年）表明，与科学标准的一致性存在很大问题。本综述旨在调查近期关于OMI的系统性综述的质量是否符合当前的科学标准：通过2022年3月17日在MEDLINE和EMBASE中进行的系统文献检索，随机抽取了100篇2021年6月1日以后发表的关于OMI的系统综述。系统性综述的质量由两名独立审稿人进行评估。更新后的数据提取表参考了之前的研究，并将结果与之前的研究结果进行了比较：结果：四分之一的综述的研究问题或目的不明确，22%的综述的检索策略与目的不符。半数综述的检索策略不全面，因为没有包含相关的检索词。63%的综述（2014年为41%，2007年为30%）进行了偏倚风险评估。73%的综述（部分）对测量属性进行了评估（2014年为58%，2007年为55%）。60%的综述对数据进行了（部分）综合（2014年为42%，2007年为7%）；大多数综述未针对子量表单独进行测量属性和数据综合评估。只有 33% 的综述对全部证据的质量进行了确定性评估（2014 年和 2007 年未进行评估）。大多数（58%）综述未就使用（不使用）哪种OMI提出任何建议：尽管在偏倚风险评估、测量属性评估和数据综合方面有了明显改善，但在明确研究问题、实施检索策略和进行确定性评估方面仍存在不足。为确保OMI的系统综述符合当前的科学标准，需要对OMI的系统综述进行更一致的操作和报告。
Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.
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
