The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments.
Background: Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools for the selection of instruments for research and clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether the quality ha...
| Publicado en: | Quality of Life Research Vol. 25; no. 4; pp. 767 - 780 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Apr2016
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=114514206&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 114514206 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 09629343 GPQ jtl: Quality of Life Research issn: 09629343 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Apr2016 vid: 25 iid: 4 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 114514206 114514206 NLM26346986 114514206 10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4 NLM26346986 PMC4830864 114514206 ppf: 767 ppct: 13 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments. aug: au: Terwee, C. Prinsen, C. Ricci Garotti, M. Suman, A. Vet, H. Mokkink, L. Terwee, C B Prinsen, C A C Ricci Garotti, M G de Vet, H C W Mokkink, L B affil: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, 1007 MB Amsterdam The Netherlands sug: subj: Outcome Assessment Research Standards Literature Quality of Life Checklists Systematic Review ab: Background: Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools for the selection of instruments for research and clinical practice. Our aim was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments and to determine whether the quality has improved since our previous study in 2007.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE between July 1, 2013, and June 19, 2014. The quality of the reviews was rated using a study-specific checklist.Results: A total of 102 reviews were included. In many reviews the search strategy was considered not comprehensive; in only 59 % of the reviews a search was performed in EMBASE and in about half of the reviews there was doubt about the comprehensiveness of the search terms used for type of measurement instruments and measurement properties. In 41 % of the reviews, compared to 30 % in our previous study, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. In 58 %, compared to 55 %, the quality of the included instruments was assessed. In 42 %, compared to 7 %, a data synthesis was performed in which the results from multiple studies on the same instrument were somehow combined.Conclusion: Despite a clear improvement in the quality of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments in comparison with our previous study in 2007, there is still room for improvement with regard to the search strategy, and especially the quality assessment of the included studies and the included instruments, and the data synthesis. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research systematic review tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|