Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A tool for selecting the best health status measurement instrument for research is a systematic review of measurement instruments, i.e. a clinimetric review. In a clinimetric review all different measurement instruments on a well-defined concept are described and evaluated.
Objectives: The aim of this review is (1) to evaluate the methodological quality of clinimetric reviews, (2) to appraise how the methodological quality of individual studies is assessed in these reviews, and (3) to appraise how the results of the individual studies are evaluated in these reviews.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of clinimetric reviews. An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Articles were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) systematic review, (2) health status measurement instruments were reviewed, and (3) the purpose of the review is to identify all measurements assessing (an aspect of) health status and to report on the clinimetric properties of these measurements. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of clinimetric reviews was developed and applied.
Preliminary results: We found 100 clinimetric reviews that satisfied our inclusion criteria. In 48 reviews the search strategy was described, 18 stated that the article selection was performed by at least two reviewers and 23 stated also that the data extraction was done by at least two reviewers. Twenty-four reviews used only one database (mostly MEDLINE/PubMed), 21 used two databases, 53 three or more (up to 24) and two only stated 'literature search'. Relatively few reviews assessed the methodological quality of the individual studies. The application of criteria varied from ad hoc to very thorough.
Conclusions: Clinimetric reviews published until now differ widely in their methodological quality. Guidelines for conducting and reporting a clinimetric review should be developed.
Objectives: The aim of this review is (1) to evaluate the methodological quality of clinimetric reviews, (2) to appraise how the methodological quality of individual studies is assessed in these reviews, and (3) to appraise how the results of the individual studies are evaluated in these reviews.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of clinimetric reviews. An extensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Articles were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) systematic review, (2) health status measurement instruments were reviewed, and (3) the purpose of the review is to identify all measurements assessing (an aspect of) health status and to report on the clinimetric properties of these measurements. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of clinimetric reviews was developed and applied.
Preliminary results: We found 100 clinimetric reviews that satisfied our inclusion criteria. In 48 reviews the search strategy was described, 18 stated that the article selection was performed by at least two reviewers and 23 stated also that the data extraction was done by at least two reviewers. Twenty-four reviews used only one database (mostly MEDLINE/PubMed), 21 used two databases, 53 three or more (up to 24) and two only stated 'literature search'. Relatively few reviews assessed the methodological quality of the individual studies. The application of criteria varied from ad hoc to very thorough.
Conclusions: Clinimetric reviews published until now differ widely in their methodological quality. Guidelines for conducting and reporting a clinimetric review should be developed.