Theresa Aves, Katherine S Allan, Sajeevan Sujanthan, Damyen Henderson-Lee Wah, Mahbod Rahimi, Sara Shalca, Teruko Kishibe, Steve Lin, Richard H Swartz, Katie N Dainty, Kirstie L Haywood
{"title":"评价院外心脏骤停成年幸存者神经认知筛查工具的测量质量和可行性：一项系统综述。","authors":"Theresa Aves, Katherine S Allan, Sajeevan Sujanthan, Damyen Henderson-Lee Wah, Mahbod Rahimi, Sara Shalca, Teruko Kishibe, Steve Lin, Richard H Swartz, Katie N Dainty, Kirstie L Haywood","doi":"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110793","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To systematically review and appraise the measurement properties, interpretability, and feasibility of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for screening neurocognitive function among adult survivors of out-of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO) from inception - August 23, 2024. Included articles evaluated measurement properties, interpretability (assigning meaning to scores), and/or feasibility (ease of application) of multidomain instruments for screening neurocognitive function among OHCA survivors. Evidence was reviewed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines: Risk of Bias determined study quality; COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties was applied; data were pooled where possible, finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria rated the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2336 titles and abstracts, 27 articles provided evidence for 13 instruments (MoCA, T-MoCA, Mini MoCA, MMSE, MMSE-ALFI, 3MS, TICS, TICS-m, WASI, IQCODE, IQCODE-CA, SF-16 IQCODE-CA, and CFQ). Only three reported measurement properties for two OMIs: the MoCA and the IQCODE-CA. The MoCA demonstrated high quality evidence of criterion validity across two studies (pooled AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.93). There were inconsistent results for the IQCODE-CA. There was limited evidence of score interpretability and feasibility across all 13 OMIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Insufficient evidence of essential measurement properties limits instrument choice. Whilst the MoCA had acceptable criterion validity, evidence of content validity was inadequate, and reliability and responsiveness lacking. Establishing robust evidence to inform screening of neurocognitive function in this population should be prioritized.</p>","PeriodicalId":21052,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation","volume":" ","pages":"110793"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating measurement quality and feasibility of neurocognitive screening instruments for adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Theresa Aves, Katherine S Allan, Sajeevan Sujanthan, Damyen Henderson-Lee Wah, Mahbod Rahimi, Sara Shalca, Teruko Kishibe, Steve Lin, Richard H Swartz, Katie N Dainty, Kirstie L Haywood\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110793\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To systematically review and appraise the measurement properties, interpretability, and feasibility of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for screening neurocognitive function among adult survivors of out-of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO) from inception - August 23, 2024. Included articles evaluated measurement properties, interpretability (assigning meaning to scores), and/or feasibility (ease of application) of multidomain instruments for screening neurocognitive function among OHCA survivors. Evidence was reviewed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines: Risk of Bias determined study quality; COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties was applied; data were pooled where possible, finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria rated the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2336 titles and abstracts, 27 articles provided evidence for 13 instruments (MoCA, T-MoCA, Mini MoCA, MMSE, MMSE-ALFI, 3MS, TICS, TICS-m, WASI, IQCODE, IQCODE-CA, SF-16 IQCODE-CA, and CFQ). Only three reported measurement properties for two OMIs: the MoCA and the IQCODE-CA. The MoCA demonstrated high quality evidence of criterion validity across two studies (pooled AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.93). There were inconsistent results for the IQCODE-CA. There was limited evidence of score interpretability and feasibility across all 13 OMIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Insufficient evidence of essential measurement properties limits instrument choice. Whilst the MoCA had acceptable criterion validity, evidence of content validity was inadequate, and reliability and responsiveness lacking. Establishing robust evidence to inform screening of neurocognitive function in this population should be prioritized.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Resuscitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"110793\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Resuscitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110793\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110793","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluating measurement quality and feasibility of neurocognitive screening instruments for adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review.
Aim: To systematically review and appraise the measurement properties, interpretability, and feasibility of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) for screening neurocognitive function among adult survivors of out-of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
Methods: Online databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsychINFO) from inception - August 23, 2024. Included articles evaluated measurement properties, interpretability (assigning meaning to scores), and/or feasibility (ease of application) of multidomain instruments for screening neurocognitive function among OHCA survivors. Evidence was reviewed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines: Risk of Bias determined study quality; COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties was applied; data were pooled where possible, finally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria rated the certainty of evidence.
Results: Of 2336 titles and abstracts, 27 articles provided evidence for 13 instruments (MoCA, T-MoCA, Mini MoCA, MMSE, MMSE-ALFI, 3MS, TICS, TICS-m, WASI, IQCODE, IQCODE-CA, SF-16 IQCODE-CA, and CFQ). Only three reported measurement properties for two OMIs: the MoCA and the IQCODE-CA. The MoCA demonstrated high quality evidence of criterion validity across two studies (pooled AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.93). There were inconsistent results for the IQCODE-CA. There was limited evidence of score interpretability and feasibility across all 13 OMIs.
Conclusions: Insufficient evidence of essential measurement properties limits instrument choice. Whilst the MoCA had acceptable criterion validity, evidence of content validity was inadequate, and reliability and responsiveness lacking. Establishing robust evidence to inform screening of neurocognitive function in this population should be prioritized.
期刊介绍：
Resuscitation is a monthly international and interdisciplinary medical journal. The papers published deal with the aetiology, pathophysiology and prevention of cardiac arrest, resuscitation training, clinical resuscitation, and experimental resuscitation research, although papers relating to animal studies will be published only if they are of exceptional interest and related directly to clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Papers relating to trauma are published occasionally but the majority of these concern traumatic cardiac arrest.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
