Search

Objective: This meta-review aims to discuss the methodological, research and practical applications of tools that assess the measurement properties of instruments evaluating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) that have been reported in systematic reviews., Design: Meta-review., Methods: Electronic search from January 2008 to May 2020 was carried out on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, WoS, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) database, Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses., Results: A total of 246 systematic reviews were assessed. Concerning the quality of the review process, some methodological shortcomings were found, such as poor compliance with reporting or methodological guidelines. Regarding the procedures to assess the quality of measurement properties, 164 (66.6%) of reviewers applied one tool at least. Tool format and structure differed across standards or scientific traditions (ie, psychology, medicine and economics), but most assess both measurement properties and the usability of instruments. As far as the results and conclusions of systematic reviews are concerned, only 68 (27.5%) linked the intended use of the instrument to specific measurement properties (eg, evaluative use to responsiveness)., Conclusions: The reporting and methodological quality of reviews have increased over time, but there is still room for improvement regarding adherence to guidelines. The COSMIN would be the most widespread and comprehensive tool to assess both the risk of bias of primary studies, and the measurement properties of HRQoL instruments for evaluative purposes. Our analysis of other assessment tools and measurement standards can serve as a starting point for future lines of work on the COSMIN tool, such as considering a more comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, including burden and fairness; expanding its scope for measurement instruments with a different use than evaluative; and improving its assessment of the risk of bias of primary studies., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017065232., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the agreement and compare the performance of three different instruments in assessing risk of bias (RoB) of comparative cohort studies included in a health psychology meta-analysis., Study Design and Setting: Three tools were applied to 28 primary studies included in the selected meta-analysis: the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, quality of cohort studies (Q-Coh), and risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I)., Results: Interrater agreement varied greatly from tool to tool. For overall RoB, 75% of the studies were rated as low RoB with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, 11% of the studies with Q-Coh, and no study was found to be at low RoB using ROBINS-I. No influence of quality ratings on the meta-analysis results was found for any of the tools., Conclusion: Assessing RoB using the three tools may lead to opposite conclusions, especially at low and high levels of RoB. Domain-based tools (Q-Coh and ROBINS-I) provide a more comprehensive framework for identifying potential sources of bias, which is essential to improving the quality of future research. Both further guidance on the application of RoB tools and improvements in the reporting of primary studies are necessary., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In this paper, we compile and describe the main approaches proposed in the literature to include methodological quality (MQ) or risk of bias (RoB) into research synthesis. We also meta-review how the RoB of observational primary studies is being assessed and to what extent the results are incorporated in the conclusions of research synthesis., Study Design and Setting: Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses related to health and clinical psychology. A random sample of 90 reviews published between January 2010 and May 2016 was examined., Results: A total of 46 reviews (51%) performed a formal assessment of the RoB of primary studies. Only 17 reviews (19%) linked the outcomes of quality assessment with the results of the review., Conclusion: According to the previous literature, our results corroborate the lack of guidance to incorporate the RoB assessment in the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our recommendation is to appraise MQ according to domains of RoB to rate the degree of credibility of the results of a research synthesis, as well as subgroup analysis or meta-regression as analytical methods to incorporate the quality assessment., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)