COSMIN Checklist for Systematic Reviews of the Hospital Preparedness Instruments in Biological Events

2021 ◽  
pp. JNM-D-19-00097
Author(s):  
Mohsen Aminizadeh ◽  
Mehrdad Farrokhi ◽  
Abbas Ebadi ◽  
Gholam Reza Masoumi ◽  
Mehdi Beyrami-jam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Hospital Preparedness ◽  
Biological Event ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Selection Of

Background and PurposeThe purpose of this research was to evaluate the psychometric properties of hospital preparedness instruments in biological events. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurements Instruments (COSMIN) checklist has been used to design the appropriate hospital preparedness instruments in these events.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and ProQuest, Google Scholar for relevant literature until December 31, 2018, and the data were extracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The quality of the identified studies was assessed per measurement property according to the COSMIN checklist. Twenty studies that met the inclusion criteria were included.ResultsThe result showed that none of the evaluated checklists and instruments included all dimensions required for an appropriate hospital preparedness evaluation. The results revealed that none of the included studies reported adequate information on all the measurement properties of the instruments studied as per the COSMIN criteria.ConclusionsThe information on their measurement properties was lacking. Thus, there was a need for evaluating measurement. However, a vital necessity is felt for developing an instrument with acceptable psychometric properties for measuring hospital preparedness in biological events. The present study provided improved clarity about the quality of currently available hospital preparedness instruments in the biological event and the results of this systematic review could be used to prepare a standardized instrument to evaluate hospital preparedness in biological disaster.

scholarly journals Suffering measurement instruments in palliative care: protocol for a systematic psychometric review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e027524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gutiérrez Sánchez ◽  
Rafael Gómez García ◽  
Isabel María López-Medina ◽  
Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Advanced Disease ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Selection Of

IntroductionThe prevention and relief of suffering are regarded as a goal at the end of life; therefore, suffering assessment at the end of life is essential. In this regard, we need instruments that allow us to evaluate this construct for gathering more evidence, as the assessment of suffering is increasingly used in research and the clinical setting. Many measures have been designed to assess this construct, and the selection of the most appropriate instrument is crucial. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) identify the measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties and (2) evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties.Methods and analysisThe protocol of this systematic review was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. A systematic psychometric review of measures assessing suffering in patients with advanced disease and their psychometric properties will be carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The search strategy will be performed following the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies. Searches will be conducted in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Open Grey, Scopus, Web of Science and COSMIN database of systematic reviews, and it will be limited by time (1980–2018) and language (only literature in English and Spanish). Literature will be evaluated by two independent reviewers according to the COSMIN checklist, and measurement properties data of each study that meet the inclusion criteria will be scored independently by two researchers according to COSMIN quality ratings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106488.

scholarly journals 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

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.

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

PeerJ ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e022829 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Lorente ◽  
Jaume Vives ◽  
Carme Viladrich ◽  
Josep-Maria Losilla
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Measurement Standards ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionUsing specific tools to assess the measurement properties of health status instruments is recommended both to standardise the review process and to improve the methodological quality of systematic reviews. However, depending on the measurement standards on which these tools are developed, the approach to appraise the measurement properties of instruments may vary. For this reason, the present meta-review aims to: (1) identify systematic reviews assessing the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL); (2) identify the tools applied to assess the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments; (3) describe the characteristics of the tools applied to assess the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments; (4) identify the measurement standards on which these tools were developed or conform to and (5) compare the similarities and differences among the identified measurement standards.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols Guidelines. Electronic search will be carried out on bibliographic databases, including PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Psychological Information, SCOPUS, Web of Science, COSMIN database and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, being limited by time (2008–2018) and language (English). Descriptive analyses of different aspects of tools applied to evaluate the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments will be presented; the different measurement standards will be described and some recommendations about the methodological and research applications will be made.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. The results will be disseminated by its publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065232

scholarly journals 459 - Psychometric properties of the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory : A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (S1) ◽  
pp. 180-180
Author(s):  
Philippe Landreville ◽  
Alexandra Champagne ◽  
Patrick Gosselin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
The Body ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Validity Indices

Background.The Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) is a widely used self-report measure of anxiety symptoms in older adults. Much research has been conducted on the psychometric properties of the GAI in various populations and using different language versions. Previous reviews of this literature have examined only a small proportion of studies in light of the body of research currently available and have not evaluated the methodological quality of this research. We conducted a systematic review of the psychometric properties of the GAI.Method.Relevant studies (N = 30) were retrieved through a search of electronic databases (Pubmed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Google Scholar) and a hand search. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the ‘‘COnsensusbased Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments’’ (COSMIN) checklist.Results.Based on the COSMIN checklist, internal consistency and test reliability were mostly rated as poorly assessed (62.1% and 70% of studies, respectively) and quality of studies examining structural validity was mostly fair (60% of studies). The GAI showed adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Convergent validity indices were highest with measures of generalized anxiety and lowest with instruments that include somatic symptoms. A substantial overlap with measures of depression was reported. While there was no consensus on the factorial structure of the GAI, several studies found it to be unidimensional.Conclusions.The GAI presents satisfactory psychometric properties. However, future efforts should aim to achieve a higher degree of methodological quality.

scholarly journals Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties and feasibility of use of dementia specific quality of life instruments for use in care settings: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura J. Hughes ◽  
Nicolas Farina ◽  
Thomas E. Page ◽  
Naji Tabet ◽  
Sube Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Care Homes ◽  
Cosmin Checklist ◽  
Many Instruments ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Quality Instruments

ABSTRACTBackground:Over 400,000 people live in care home settings in the UK. One way of understanding and improving the quality of care provided is by measuring and understanding the quality of life (QoL) of those living in care homes. This review aimed to identify and examine the psychometric properties including feasibility of use of dementia-specific QoL measures developed or validated for use in care settings.Design:Systematic review.Methods:Instruments were identified using four electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL) and lateral search techniques. Searches were conducted in January 2017. Studies which reported on the development and/or validation of dementia specific QoL instruments for use in care settings written in English were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Feasibility was assessed using a checklist developed specifically for the review.Results:Six hundred and sixteen articles were identified in the initial search. After de-duplication, screening and further lateral searches were performed, 25 studies reporting on 9 dementia-specific QoL instruments for use in care home settings were included in the review. Limited evidence was available on the psychometric properties of many instruments identified. Higher-quality instruments were not easily accessible or had low feasibility of use.Conclusions:Few high-quality instruments of QoL validated for use in care home settings are readily or freely available. This review highlights the need to develop a well-validated measure of QoL for use within care homes that is also feasible and accessible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document