Systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical Function Shortform (KOOS-PS)

Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate all evidence on measurement properties of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical function Shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical function Shortform (KOOS-PS). Design: This study was conducted according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsychINFO through February 2019 were searched. Eligible studies evaluated patients with hip or knee complaints and described a measurement property, interpretability, feasibility, or the development of either the HOOS-PS or KOOS-PS. Results: Twenty-three studies were included. For both questionnaires, the content validity was found inconsistent and the quality evidence was moderate for a sufficient reliability and high for an insufficient construct validity. The HOOS-PS had a high quality evidence of sufficient structural validity and internal consistency (pooled Cronbach's alpha 0.80; n = 3761) and low quality evidence of sufficient measurement error and indeterminate responsiveness. Concerning the KOOS-PS, the quality evidence was high for an insufficient responsiveness, moderate for an inconsistent structural validity and internal consistency and low for an inconsistent measurement error. Conclusions: The inconsistent evidence for content validity implies that scores on the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS may inadequately reflect physical functioning. Furthermore, there is evidence for insufficient construct validity and responsiveness in patients with knee osteoarthritis receiving conservative treatment. Using the HOOS-PS or KOOS-PS as outcome measurement instruments for comparing outcomes, measuring improvements or benchmarking in patients with hip or knee complaints or undergoing arthroplasty should only be done with great caution. Review registration: PROSPERO number CRD4201706953

Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery:a systematic review

Objective: The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS). Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A–D). Results: Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D). Conclusion: The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials

Measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice: The first consensus statement from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema in clinical practice initiative

Background: Measuring patient-centered outcomes in clinical practice is valuable for monitoring patients and advancing real-world research. A new initiative from the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) group aims to recommend what might be recorded for atopic eczema patients in routine clinical care. Objectives: Prioritize outcome domains to measure atopic eczema in clinical practice and select valid and practical outcome measurement instruments for the highest-priority domain. Methods: An online survey of HOME members identified and ranked 21 possible health domains. Suitable instruments were then selected for the top-prioritized domain at the HOME VI meeting, using established consensus processes informed by systematic reviews of instrument quality. Results: Patient-reported symptoms was the top-prioritized domain. In accordance with psychometric properties and feasibility, there was consensus that the recommended instruments to measure atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice are the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both. The numeric rating scale for itch received support pending definition and validation in atopic eczema. Conclusion: Following the first step of the HOME Clinical Practice initiative, we endorse using the POEM, the PO-SCORAD index, or both for measuring atopic eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Additional high-priority domains for clinical practice will be assessed at subsequent HOME meetings

A systematic review on the role of imiquimod in lentigo maligna and lentigo maligna melanoma:need for standardization of treatment schedule and outcome measures

Lentigo maligna (LM) is an in situ variant of melanoma. Our objective was to systematically review clinical and histological clearance and recurrence rates of imiquimod treatment of LM with emphasis on progression to lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM). PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were searched from inception to May 2015. Articles were included if they described histologically proven LM treated with imiquimod 5% monotherapy or combined with another topical therapy. Analysed outcomes were clinical and histological clearance, recurrence rates and number of LMM. The quality was assessed using the GRADE-like checklist, and results were reported according to the PRISMA Statement. Twenty-six case reports, 11 retrospective studies, three prospective studies and one randomized controlled trial were included. One case report of poor quality was excluded. Complete clinical clearance was seen in 369 of 471 patients (78.3%). Histological clearance was present in 285 of 370 (77%) patients. LMM was diagnosed in nine (1.8%) patients 3.9 months (range 0–11 months) post-treatment. Univariate multinominal logistic regression showed that 6–7 applications/week had a 6.47 greater odds (P = 0.017) of resulting in complete clinical clearance compared to 1–4 applications/week. An intensity of 6–7 applications/week showed a 8.85 greater odds (P = 0.003) of resulting in histological clearance compared to 1–4 applications. Applying imiquimod >60 times during a treatment period of 12 weeks (range 4–36) showed a 7.75 greater odds (P = 0.001) of resulting in histological clearance compared to <60 total applications. In conclusion, a treatment schedule using imiquimod 6–7 applications per week, with at least 60 applications, shows the greatest odds of complete clinical and histological clearance of LM. Imiquimod is an option for patients unfit for or not willing to undergo surgery or radiotherapy. Nine cases of LM progressed to LMM shortly after treatment. Our hypothesis is that these LMM may have been present before starting imiquimod

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

Purpose: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practiceCP has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under Grant Agreement No. 305081

A systematic review of outcome reporting in laser treatments for dermatological diseases

The standardization of outcome reporting is crucial for interpretation and comparison of studies related to laser treatment of skin disorders. In collaboration with the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN), a procedure has been proposed to find consensus on the most important generic outcome domains (what to measure) for implementation in the international Laser TrEAtment in Dermatology (LEAD) registry. As the first step in the development of a generic outcome set for the LEAD registry, we undertook a systematic review to identify outcomes, outcome measurement instruments, methods and definitions reported in recently published literature of laser treatments for skin disorders. A systematic search was conducted and generated a total of 707 papers. We assessed 150 studies including all types of studies involving laser treatments for the skin. Two researchers independently extracted the type, definition and frequency of all outcomes and used outcome measurement instruments. We identified 105 verbatim outcomes that were categorized into eight domains recommended by the COMET framework: appearance, long-term effects, physician and patient-reported physical signs, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, psychological functioning and adverse events. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting (e.g. categories and outcome measurement instruments) was high, and definitions were insufficiently reported. There was a clear under representation of life impact domains, including satisfaction (23%) quality of life (3%) and psychological functioning (1%). Outcome reporting concerning laser treatments for the skin is heterogeneous. Standardized outcomes are needed for improving evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be used in the next step to reach consensus between stakeholders on the outcome domains to be implemented in the LEAD registry

Patients with lichen sclerosus experience moderate satisfaction with treatment and impairment of quality of life: results of a cross-sectional study

Background: Although they are considered relevant, little is known about satisfaction with treatment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with lichen sclerosus (LS). Objectives: In a cross-sectional study, we aimed to examine (i) satisfaction with treatment, (ii) patient characteristics associated with satisfaction and (iii) HRQoL in Dutch patients with LS. Methods: Members of the Dutch LS Patient Association (n = 750) were invited to complete a web-based survey. We measured satisfaction with treatment with a study-specific questionnaire, and HRQoL with the Skindex-29. We calculated domain scores for symptoms, emotions and functioning, and categorized scores into little, mildly, moderately or severely impaired HRQoL. We used a multiple linear regression analysis to examine whether patient characteristics were associated with treatment satisfaction. Results: In total 303 patients (40·4%) were included. Patients under current treatment (n = 265, 87·5%) were moderately satisfied with their treatment. Patients rated ‘treatment effectiveness’ as most important, although 58 (22%) were dissatisfied with the effectiveness of their current treatment. More impairment on the HRQoL emotions domain and a higher degree of disease severity were both associated with lower satisfaction with treatment and explained in total 13·5% of the variance in treatment satisfaction. On all HRQoL domains, one-third of the patients (range 34·7–38·9%) reported severe impairment. Conclusions: Patients with LS are moderately satisfied with their treatment, and one-third of patients experience severe impairment of HRQoL. To improve dermatological care, we recommend enhancement of doctor–patient communication, information provision and organization, which may be more amenable to change than treatment effectiveness or safety

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

Purpose: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practiceCP has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under Grant Agreement No. 305081

COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

Background: Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods: An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. Results: Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. Discussion: The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice