Galen Research, Manchester, UK.
School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
J Med Econ. 2021 Jan-Dec;24(1):502-511. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2021.1907092.
As test-developers we have often been troubled by published reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Too often minor issues are judged important while other reviews exclude the best measures available. Perhaps this led several groups to make recommendations for evaluating the quality of PROMs. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist is the latest set of recommendations. While reviewing the COSMIN literature and reviews conducted using their recommendations several concerns became apparent. The checklist is not evidence-based, relying on the opinion of researchers experienced in health-related quality of life. PROMs measuring other types of outcomes are inadequately covered by the checklist. COSMIN choose to focus on Classical Test Theory and the checklists are not appropriate for use with PROMs developed using modern measurement. Such an approach only obstructs progress in the field of outcome measurement. The retrospective nature of the evaluations also penalizes new PROMs. While the checklists imply that composite, ordinal level measurement is acceptable, crucial aspects of instrument development and quality are excluded. Reviews based on the COSMIN checklist produce contradictory conclusions and fail to provide evidence to support the recommendations. These problems suggest that the checklists themselves lack reliability and validity. It is also clear that several reviewers lack the expertise to apply the checklists. Researchers require a good grounding in instrument development and psychometrics to produce quality reviews. The science of modern PROM development is still in an early phase. Few available PROMs have sufficient quality, limiting the need for complex reviews. Standards need to be agreed for high quality outcome measurement. The issue is who should set these standards? Most published reviews merely scratch the surface and lack essential detail. All reviews of PROMs should be treated with caution, irrespective of whether the COSMIN checklist was employed.
作为测试开发者,我们经常对已发表的患者报告结局测量(PROM)文献综述感到困扰。太多时候,次要问题被认为是重要的,而其他综述则排除了最佳的可用测量方法。也许这导致了几个小组提出了评估 PROM 质量的建议。基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准(COSMIN)清单是最新的一组建议。在审查 COSMIN 文献和使用其建议进行的综述时,出现了一些关注问题。清单不是基于证据的,而是依赖于对健康相关生活质量有经验的研究人员的意见。清单不能充分涵盖用于测量其他类型结局的 PROM。COSMIN 选择专注于经典测量理论,清单不适用于使用现代测量方法开发的 PROM。这种方法只会阻碍结局测量领域的进展。评估的回顾性性质也会对新的 PROM 产生不利影响。虽然清单暗示组合、有序水平测量是可以接受的,但排除了仪器开发和质量的关键方面。基于 COSMIN 清单的综述产生了相互矛盾的结论,未能提供证据支持这些建议。这些问题表明清单本身缺乏可靠性和有效性。显然,几位综述者缺乏应用清单的专业知识。研究人员需要在仪器开发和心理测量学方面有良好的基础,才能进行高质量的综述。现代 PROM 开发的科学仍处于早期阶段。可用的 PROM 质量参差不齐,限制了对复杂综述的需求。需要为高质量的结局测量达成标准。问题是谁应该制定这些标准?大多数已发表的综述只是表面文章,缺乏必要的细节。所有的 PROM 综述都应该谨慎对待,无论是否使用了 COSMIN 清单。