A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify measures of breakthrough pain and evaluate their psychometric properties

IntroductionBreakthrough pain is common in children and adults with cancer and other conditions, including those approaching end-of-life, although it is often poorly managed, possibly partly due to a lack of validated assessment tools. This review aims to (1) identify all available instruments measuring breakthrough pain in infants, children, adolescents or adults and (2) critically appraise, compare and summarise the quality of the psychometric properties of the identified instruments using COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria.Methods and analysisTwo searches will be carried out between October 2019 and January 2020, one for each aim of the review. The Cochrane Library, International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, Evidence Search and OpenGrey databases will be searched from database inception until the date the search is conducted. Reference lists of eligible articles will be screened and authors in the field contacted. For search 1, articles will be screened by two reviewers by abstract, and full-text where necessary, to identify if a breakthrough pain assessment was used. Search 2 will then be conducted to identify studies evaluating measurement properties of these assessments. Two reviewers will screen articles from search 2 by title and abstract. All potentially relevant studies will be screened by full text by both reviewers. For search 2, data will be extracted in parallel with the quality assessment process, as recommended by COSMIN. Two reviewers will assess methodological quality using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the COSMIN updated criteria for good measurement properties. Findings will be summarised and, if possible, data will be pooled using meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence will be graded and summarised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationResults of this review will be submitted for publication in a peer review journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155583.

Download Full-text

Psychometric Properties of Postpartum Quality of Life Questionnaires: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-135830/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Tahereh Mokhtarian-Gilani ◽

Nourossadat kariman ◽

Hamid Sharif-Nia ◽

Mahbobeh Ahmadi-Doulabi ◽

Malihe Nasiri

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Validity And Reliability ◽

Quality Of Life Questionnaires ◽

General Quality

Abstract Background:The postpartum quality of life refers to women's understanding of their standing in the postpartum crisis that differs depending on their health status, social support, cultural status and values, attitudes, goals and standards. The present systematic review will identify, describe, and critically assess the psychometric properties of postpartum quality of life questionnaires.Methods/Design:A systematic review will be conducted in databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from January 2000 to January 2020. The psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the instruments used in the primary studies will be assessed, and the selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction processes of the studies will be independently assessed by two reviewers with expertise in conducting systematic reviews, so as to minimize potential personal bias. Eligible resources are selected after any lack of consensus is put to debate.The risk of bias is assessed using the COSMIN RISK of Bias checklist, and to evaluate the quality of the studies, the protocol is written based on the PRISMA-P1 standards. The results of the studies will be judged based on good measurement properties, and the results of all the studies are qualitatively summarized to produce a reference for the general quality of the results. The general quality of the evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE method.Discussion:This study assessed the psychometric properties of questionnaires used for assessing postpartum quality of life and its results can be used to identify the most appropriate tool for health applications in measuring postpartum quality of life. Systematic review registration: reference number in PROSPRO CRD42020166301

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a COSMIN systematic review protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1240-0 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Brett Williams ◽

Bronwyn Beovich

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Future Research ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Jefferson Scale Of Empathy

Abstract Background Empathy is an important characteristic to possess for healthcare professionals. It has been found to improve communication between professionals and patients and to improve clinical health outcomes. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed to measure this quality and has been used extensively, and psychometrically appraised, with a variety of cohorts and in different cultural environments. However, no study has been undertaken to systematically examine the methodological quality of studies which have assessed psychometric factors of the JSE. This systematic review will examine the quality of published papers that have reported on psychometric factors of the JSE. Methods A systematic review of studies which report on the psychometric properties of the JSE will be conducted. We will use a predefined search strategy to identify studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: original data is reported on for at least one of the psychometric measurement properties described in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist, examines the JSE in a healthcare cohort (using the student, physician or health profession versions of the JSE), and is published from January 2001 and in the English language. Conference abstracts, editorials and grey literature will be excluded. Six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL) will be systematically searched for articles meeting these criteria and studies will be assessed for eligibility by two review authors. The methodological quality of included papers will be examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Discussion A narrative description of the findings will be presented along with summary tables. Recommendations for use of the JSE with various cohorts and circumstances will be offered which may inform future research in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018111412

Download Full-text

Instruments for Measuring Satisfaction With Physical Therapy Care: A Systematic Review

Physical Therapy ◽

10.1093/ptj/pzaa111 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 100 (9) ◽

pp. 1690-1700

Author(s):

Daniel Gutiérrez-Sánchez ◽

David Pérez-Cruzado ◽

Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Physical Therapy ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Selection Of

Abstract Objective Several instruments to measure patient satisfaction have been developed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The selection of the most appropriate instrument is very important. The purpose of this study was to identify instruments for assessing satisfaction with physical therapy care and their psychometric properties and to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on psychometric properties. Methods A systematic search was conducted in ProQuest Medline, SciELO, ProQuest PsycINFO, Theseus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Articles published from 1990 to 2019, in English and Spanish, were used as limits. This systematic review followed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards. The articles were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments 4-point checklist. Eighteen studies were included. Results Nine instruments were found to be specifically designed to assess satisfaction with physical therapy care. The methodological quality of the studies was “fair” for most of the psychometric characteristics analyzed (43 items), with 24 properties scored as “poor,” 5 as “good,” and 3 as “excellent.” Conclusions Different instrument characteristics—such as the scope and population with which the instrument will be used, its dimensions, the number of items, and the evidence shown in the evaluation of each psychometric property—should be considered by clinicians and researchers to decide which instrument is the best to measure the construct of patient satisfaction with physical therapy. Impact Evaluating patient satisfaction is very useful in clinical practice at the hospital, community, and primary care levels. Physical therapist clinicians and researchers can use this systematic review to select instruments whose characteristics will best measure their patients’ satisfaction with physical therapy care.

Download Full-text

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement – a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-021-01231-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Stefanie Bühn ◽

Peggy Ober ◽

Tim Mathes ◽

Uta Wegewitz ◽

Anja Jacobs ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Psychometric Properties ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Perfect Agreement ◽

Retest Reliability ◽

Test Retest Reliability ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background Systematic Reviews (SRs) can build the groundwork for evidence-based health care decision-making. A sound methodological quality of SRs is crucial. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a widely used tool developed to assess the methodological quality of SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Research shows that AMSTAR seems to be valid and reliable in terms of interrater reliability (IRR), but the test retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR has never been investigated. In our study we investigated the TRR of AMSTAR to evaluate the importance of its measurement and contribute to the discussion of the measurement properties of AMSTAR and other quality assessment tools. Methods Seven raters at three institutions independently assessed the methodological quality of SRs in the field of occupational health with AMSTAR. Between the first and second ratings was a timespan of approximately two years. Answers were dichotomized, and we calculated the TRR of all raters and AMSTAR items using Gwet’s AC1 coefficient. To investigate the impact of variation in the ratings over time, we obtained summary scores for each review. Results AMSTAR item 4 (Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?) provided the lowest median TRR of 0.53 (moderate agreement). Perfect agreement of all reviewers was detected for AMSTAR-item 1 with a Gwet’s AC1 of 1, which represented perfect agreement. The median TRR of the single raters varied between 0.69 (substantial agreement) and 0.89 (almost perfect agreement). Variation of two or more points in yes-scored AMSTAR items was observed in 65% (73/112) of all assessments. Conclusions The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR.. However, more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties. Our results may initiate discussion of the importance of considering the TRR of assessment tools. A further examination of the TRR of AMSTAR, as well as other recently established rating tools such as AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), would be useful.

Download Full-text

Psychometric properties of self-reported financial toxicity measures in cancer survivors: a systematic review protocol using COSMIN methodology

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036365 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. e036365

Author(s):

Zheng Zhu ◽

Weijie Xing ◽

Lucylynn Lizarondo ◽

Jian Peng ◽

Yan Hu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cancer Survivors ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Public Healthcare ◽

Financial Toxicity ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Patient Reported

IntroductionDue to the higher costs associated with advancements in cancer treatment and longer duration of cancer survivorship, increasing financial toxicity has become a great threat to survivors, caregivers and public healthcare systems. Since accurate and reproducible measures are prerequisites for robust results, choosing an acceptable measure with strong psychometric properties to assess financial toxicity is essential. However, a description of the psychometric properties of existing measures is still lacking. The aim of this study is to apply COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology to systematically review the content and structural validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of financial toxicity for cancer survivors.Methods and analysisPubMed/Medline, Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to 15 November 2019. Studies that report the measurement properties of PROMs assessing financial toxicity for cancer survivors will be included. The evaluation of measurement properties, data extraction and data synthesis will be conducted according to the COSMIN methodology.Ethics and disseminationNo individual data are involved in this systematic review. The results will be disseminated to a clinical audience and policy-makers though peer-reviewed journals and conferences and will support researchers in choosing the best measure to evaluate the financial toxicity of cancer survivors.

Download Full-text

Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017972 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. e017972 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Zarnie Khadjesari ◽

Silia Vitoratou ◽

Nick Sevdalis ◽

Louise Hull

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Health Measurement ◽

Healthcare Settings ◽

Implementation Outcomes ◽

Psychometric Quality ◽

The Impact ◽

Selection Of

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.

Download Full-text

Informant-based assessment instruments for dementia and their measurement properties in persons with intellectual disability: systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040920 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e040920

Author(s):

Elisabeth L Zeilinger ◽

Sophie Komenda ◽

Irina Zrnic ◽

Fabian Franken ◽

Katharina Woditschka

Keyword(s):

Intellectual Disability ◽

Developmental Disorders ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Assessment Instruments ◽

Functional Impairments ◽

Global Risk ◽

Measurement Instruments ◽

Health Measurement

IntroductionPersons with intellectual disability (ID) are at a higher risk of developing dementia than persons without ID, with an expected earlier onset. Assessment methods for the general population cannot be applied for persons with ID due to their pre-existing intellectual and functional impairments. As there is no agreed-upon measure to assess dementia in persons with ID, multiple instruments for this purpose have been developed and adapted in the past decades. This review aimed to identify all available informant-based instruments for the assessment of dementia in persons with ID, to evaluate and compare them according to their measurement properties, and to provide a recommendation for the most suitable instruments. Additionally, an overview of the amount and quality of research on these instruments will be provided.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We will adhere to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines and use a set of characteristics developed for assessment instruments for persons with ID, the Characteristics of Assessment Instruments for Psychiatric Disorders in Persons with Intellectual Developmental Disorders. Two comprehensive, systematic literature searches will be applied in 10 international databases, including ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Risk of bias and quality assessment will be done according to COSMIN guidelines. We will apply the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the overall quality of the available evidence.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics statement is needed for this study. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at international conferences.

Download Full-text

Mandibular alignment changes after full-fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

European Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1093/ejo/cjz004 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 41 (6) ◽

pp. 609-621 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Ahmad J Swidi ◽

Andreea E Griffin ◽

Peter H Buschang

Keyword(s):

Observational Studies ◽

Orthodontic Treatment ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Post Treatment ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Meta Analyses

SummaryBackgroundAlthough post-treatment mandibular alignment has been extensively investigated, the findings remain controversial.ObjectivesThe objective was to assess mandibular alignment changes, as measured by the irregularity index, of patients who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment and were followed up at least 1 year after retention.Search methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, in addition, the reference lists of included studies, were screened. The search was conducted up to April 2018.Selection criteriaThe study designs included both interventional and observational studies of orthodontic patients who received either extraction or non-extraction treatment.Data collection and analysisThe interventional studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool. The quality of the observational studies was evaluated using National Institution of Health quality assessment tools. The first two authors independently applied the eligibility criteria, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Any conflicts were resolved with consensus discussion with the third author.ResultsThe search retrieved 11 326 articles, 170 of which were assessed for eligibility. There were 44 studies included in the qualitative assessments and 30 in the meta-analyses. The studies included 1 randomized control trial (RCT) and 43 observational studies. The RCT was judged to have a high risk of bias and all of the observational studies had either fair or poor quality. The meta-analysis was based on studies judged to be of fair quality, including a total of 1859 patients. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models. The standardized mean difference between post-treatment and post-retention irregularity was 1.22 (95% CI, 1.04–1.40) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63–1.07) after extraction and non-extraction treatments, respectively. There was a substantial heterogeneity for the extraction (I2 = 75.2%) and non-extraction (I2 = 70.1%) studies. The follow-up duration (1–10 versus 10–20 years) explained 33% of the heterogeneity, with longer follow-up studies showing more irregularity.LimitationsThe quality of evidence provided by the studies was low. There was a risk of publication bias, and the search was limited to English language.Conclusions and implicationsPost-treatment mandibular irregularity increases are limited. Irregularity increases are slightly greater in patients treated with mandibular premolars extractions, and in patients followed up over longer periods of time.RegistrationThe study protocol was not registered.

Download Full-text

School health assessment tools: a systematic review of measurement in primary schools

PeerJ ◽

10.7717/peerj.9459 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. e9459

Author(s):

Maryam Kazemitabar ◽

Ali Moghadamzadeh ◽

Mojtaba Habibi ◽

Rezvan Hakimzadeh ◽

Danilo Garcia

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Primary Schools ◽

School Health ◽

Health Assessment ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Cosmin Checklist

Background This systematic review aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the school health’s assessment tools in primary schools through COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. We examined the studies that have addressed the measurement properties of school-health instruments to give a clear overview of the quality of all available tools measuring school health in primary schools. This systematic review was registered in PROPERO with the Registration ID: CRD42020158158. Method Databases of EBSCOhost, PubMed, ProQuest, Wily, PROSPERO, and OpenGrey were systematically searched without any time limitation to find all full-text English journal articles studied at least one of the COSMIN checklist measurement properties of a school-health assessment tool in primary schools. The instruments should be constructed based on a school health model. The eligible studies were assessed by COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist to report their quality of methodology for each measurement property and for the whole study by rating high, moderate or low quality. Results At the final screening just seven studies remained for review. Four studies were tool development, three of them were rated as “adequate” and the other study as “very good”; five studies examined the content validity, three of them were appraised as “very good”, and the two remaining as “inadequate”. All seven studies measured structural validity, three of them were evaluated as “very good”, three other were scored as “adequate”, and the last study as “inadequate”. All the seven studies investigated the internal consistency, five of them were assessed as “very good”, one was rated as “doubtful”, and the last one as “inadequate”. Just one study examined the cross-cultural validity and was rated as “adequate”. Finally, all seven studies measured reliability, two of them were rated as “very good” and the rest five studies were appraised as “doubtful”. All rating was based on COSMIN checklist criteria for quality of measurement properties assessment. Conclusion The number of studies addressing school health assessment tools was very low and therefore not sufficient. Hence, there is a serious need to investigate the psychometric properties of the available instruments measuring school health at primary schools. Moreover, the studies included in the present systematic review did not fulfill all the criteria of the COSMIN checklist for assessing measurement properties. We suggest that future studies consider these criteria for measuring psychometric properties and developing school health assessment tools.

Download Full-text

Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale in a Large Sample of People With Neuromuscular, Neurological, or Hearing Disabilities

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659562 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Emiliano Díez ◽

Estíbaliz Jiménez-Arberas ◽

Thais Pousada

Keyword(s):

Assistive Technology ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Psychosocial Impact ◽

Assistive Devices ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Spanish Version ◽

Assistive Device ◽

Measurement Properties ◽

Large Sample

Assistive technology (AT) is any device, software, or equipment designed for and used by individuals with disabilities to engage in everyday activities and achieve independence. However, the usefulness of those technology-based or supported treatments is a complex issue that has led to the development of various conceptual models for assistive technology outcomes research and practice as well as different assessment tools that help to explore the effect of technology on people's lives. One of those instruments is the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Device Scale (PIADS), a 26-item questionnaire that measures the psychosocial impact of interventions, using assistive devices in three quality-of-life domains: competence, adaptability, and self-esteem. PIADS scale has been translated and adapted to several languages, and it has been successfully used to measure AT outcomes in different disability profiles to predict abandonment or even as a relevant determinant of future adoption of eHealth. Quinteiro (2010) adapted PIADS to Spanish for the first time, although no studies have yet been published to systematically study its psychometric properties. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate measurement properties of the Spanish version of PIADS scale by means of a dataset obtained from its application to a large sample (n = 417) of people with neuromuscular, neurological, or hearing disabilities that used different assistive devices. The results will provide valuable indicators about the measurement quality of the Spanish PIADS scale and will help to promote the use of reliable and valid AT outcome assessment tools for research and clinical purposes.

Download Full-text