SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Patient-reported outcome measures for patients with chronic comorbidities: a systematic review of psychometric properties.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for patients with chronic comorbidities.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across ten databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, China Biomedical Literature Database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search period extended from each database’s inception up to November 9, 2024, encompassing studies published in English and Chinese. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they (a) utilized any relevant research design and (b) reported at least one psychometric property of instruments applied to populations with chronic comorbidities. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and applied the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to evaluate three key aspects: (1) methodological quality, (2) psychometric properties, and (3) level of evidence (assessed using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] framework). A third reviewer resolved discrepancies arising during screening and data extraction.
resultsAmong the 40 included studies, 24 measured ≥ 5 psychometric properties. While structural validity and internal consistency were rated as having acceptable quality (19 studies for structural validity and 16 for internal consistency rated “very good”), critical deficiencies were observed in content validity (only 1 study rated “adequate”), cross-cultural validity (only 3 studies), and responsiveness (only 4 studies). Three instruments (MEQ-EPMCD, NL-MTBQ, and the German version of MTBQ) demonstrated sufficiently strong evidence to warrant strong recommendations.
conclusionThis systematic review emphasizes the need for more in-depth validation of current PROMs in chronic comorbidities. Future research should adhere to COSMIN guidelines, prioritize cross-cultural adaptation, and integrate patient-centered design elements, such as user engagement and cognitive interviewing, to enable accurate comorbidity assessment within integrated disease management frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41484477What Socratic holds
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.