急性支气管炎患者报告结果测量的质量:对仪器和测量特性的系统评价。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Theresa Donhauser, Katharina Piontek, Ann-Kristin Baalmann, Christian Apfelbacher
{"title":"急性支气管炎患者报告结果测量的质量:对仪器和测量特性的系统评价。","authors":"Theresa Donhauser, Katharina Piontek, Ann-Kristin Baalmann, Christian Apfelbacher","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL<sub>16</sub>) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>)), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>, indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub> cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP ).</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271018/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for acute bronchitis: a systematic review of instruments and measurement properties.\",\"authors\":\"Theresa Donhauser, Katharina Piontek, Ann-Kristin Baalmann, Christian Apfelbacher\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL<sub>16</sub>) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>)), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub>, indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL<sub>6</sub> cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP ).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36660,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12271018/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00921-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)是直接从患者那里评估健康结果的标准化问卷。急性支气管炎(AB)和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs质量尚未进行系统评价。本研究旨在系统评价成人和儿童用于AB和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs的质量。方法:检索Embase、PubMed和Web of Science,检索关于AB和(下)呼吸道感染或普通感冒引起的急性咳嗽的PROMs的开发和/或验证的研究报告。我们评估了每个纳入研究的方法学质量,评估了每个PROM和研究的测量特性的质量,并根据基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)方法学对证据进行了分级。根据总体证据,我们得出了使用这些仪器的建议。结果:我们纳入了三项关于成人疾病严重程度(急性支气管炎严重程度评分(ABSS);症状日记)和咳嗽相关生活质量(莱斯特咳嗽问卷(lcq -急性))。对于儿童,我们纳入了两项评估生活质量的PROM研究(家长代理儿童急性咳嗽特异性生活质量问卷(PAC-QoL16)及其简式问卷(PAC-QoL6)),以及一项评估感冒症状的PROM研究(儿童感冒症状问卷(CCSQ))。除PAC-QoL6外,所有仪器均被归类为COSMIN B类,表明它们具有推荐的潜力,但需要进一步验证。PAC-QoL6不建议使用(COSMIN C类)。内容效度是所有已识别prom的一个缺点。结论:所有鉴定出的PROMs均不能无限制地推荐用于未来的研究。对于成人,LCQ-acute似乎是最合适的工具,需要进一步验证。鉴于对PROM设计的大规模开发和测试的密集工作,CCSQ有望在儿童中使用。强烈建议对所有已确定的prom进行涉及患者和专家的内容效度评估。系统评审注册:OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for acute bronchitis: a systematic review of instruments and measurement properties.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.

Methodology: Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.

Results: We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL16) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL6)), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL6, indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL6 cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.

Conclusions: None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.

Systematic review registration: OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3G6CP ).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信