100 篇近期健康相关结局测评工具系统评价的方法学质量：综述概览。

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology & Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Qual Life Res. 2024 Oct;33(10):2593-2609. doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03706-z. Epub 2024 Jul 3.

DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03706-z

PMID:38961010

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11452433/

Abstract

PURPOSE

Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.

METHODS

One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.

RESULTS

A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.

CONCLUSION

Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

摘要

目的

评估和比较测量工具（OMI）测量性能的系统评价在 OMI 选择中起着重要作用。早期对评价质量的综述（2007 年、2014 年）表明，在符合科学标准方面存在很大的担忧。本综述旨在调查最近 OMI 的系统评价的质量是否符合当前的科学标准。

方法

通过 2022 年 3 月 17 日在 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 上进行的系统文献检索，随机选择了 2021 年 6 月 1 日以后发表的 100 篇 OMI 系统评价。由两名独立审查员评价系统评价的质量。一个更新的数据提取表是根据早期研究通知的，结果与这些早期研究的结果进行了比较。

结果

四分之一的综述没有明确的研究问题或目的，22%的综述的检索策略与目的不匹配。一半的综述检索策略不全面，因为没有包括相关的检索词。在 63%的综述中（相比 2014 年的 41%和 2007 年的 30%）进行了偏倚风险评估。在 73%的综述中（部分）评价了测量性能（2014 年的 58%和 2007 年的 55%）。在 60%的综述中（部分）进行了数据综合（2014 年的 42%和 2007 年的 7%）；大多数综述没有分别对亚量表进行测量性能评价和数据综合。只有 33%的综述（2014 年和 2007 年没有评估）进行了证据质量的总体确定性评估。大多数综述（58%）没有就使用哪个 OMI（不）提出任何建议。