Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198348›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures version 2.0.

Lidwine B Mokkink, Ellen B M Elsman, Caroline B Terwee

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07186400 (Beyond Straight Lines), which is not on this map. Cited by 183 papers, 49 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
183citing papers in PubMed, 49 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07186400 completednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Beyond Straight Lines: The Test-retest Reliability and Concurrent Validity of the Figure of Eight Walk Test and the 360° Turn Test in Patients With Total Hip Arthroplasty

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorArtvin Coruh UniversityRan2025 to 2025Enrolled54ConditionsTotal Hip Arthroplasty
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

183 citing papers in PubMed, 49 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

123 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lidwine B MokkinkDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Location AMC, J1B -225, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands. w.mokkink@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6489-2827
Ellen B M ElsmanDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Location AMC, J1B -225, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0680-6430
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Location AMC, J1B -225, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1105 AZ, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4570-2826

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSystematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important tools to select the most suitable PROM for a study or clinical application. Conducting these reviews is challenging, and the quality of these reviews needs to be improved. We updated the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs, including the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and the COSMIN criteria for good measurement properties.

methodsAdaptations to the methodology were based on our experience with applying the COSMIN guideline, through discussions among the authors, and results from two related Delphi studies.

resultsThe updated guideline places more emphasis on key aspects that are often missing or sub optimally conducted in published systematic reviews of PROMs, such as formulating a well-defined research question and developing a comprehensive search strategy, assessing risk of bias, applying criteria for good measurement properties, summarizing results, and grading the quality of the evidence. We also stress the importance of evaluating the measurement properties of each subscale of a PROM separately and evaluating content validity of all included PROMs.

conclusionThe quality of systematic reviews of PROMs can be improved by using this updated version of the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Improved quality will lead to better PROM selection and increased standardization of PROM use.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresChecklistDelphi TechniqueGuidelines as TopicHumansQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicCOSMINMeasurement propertiesOutcome measurement instrumentPatient-reported outcome measuresSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID39198348
PMCPMC11541334

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.