Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2018

Open Access 01-05-2018

COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Authors: L. B. Mokkink, H. C. W. de Vet, C. A. C. Prinsen, D. L. Patrick, J. Alonso, L. M. Bouter, C. B. Terwee

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties.

Methods

For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis.

Results

Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system.

Conclusions

The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ioannidis, J. P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., et al. (2014). Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet, 383(9912), 166–175.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Walton, M. K., Powers, J. H., Hobart, J., Patrick, D. L., Marquis, P., Vamvakas, S., et al. (2015). Clinical outcome assessments: Conceptual foundation—report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment-emerging good practices for outcome research task force. Value in Health, 18(6), 741–752.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Prinsen, C. A., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., De Vet, H. C., et al. (2017). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (submitted).
4.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Whiting, P. F., et al. (2011). QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(8), 529–536.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & De Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A., Chiarotto, A., De Vet, H. C., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2017). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of health-related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Delphi study (submitted).
9.
Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., De Vet, H. C., et al. (2017). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs); user manual. Retrieved 2017 from http://​www.​cosmin.​nl.
10.
11.
Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6(5), 393–406.CrossRefPubMed
12.
De Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2010). Measurement in medicine: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Terwee, C. B., Jansma, E. P., Riphagen, I. I., & De Vet, H. C. (2009). Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1115–1123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Aaronson, N., Alonso, J., Burnam, A., Lohr, K. N., Patrick, D. L., Perrin, E., et al. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendivil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., De Boer, M. R., Van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Francis, D. O., McPheeters, M. L., Noud, M., Penson, D. F., & Feurer, I. D. (2016). Checklist to operationalize measurement characteristics of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Authors
L. B. Mokkink
H. C. W. de Vet
C. A. C. Prinsen
D. L. Patrick
J. Alonso
L. M. Bouter
C. B. Terwee
Publication date
01-05-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Quality of Life Research 5/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Association of midlife value priorities with health-related quality of life, frailty and mortality among older men: a 26-year follow-up of the Helsinki Businessmen Study (HBS)

OriginalPaper

Assessing the equivalence of Web-based and paper-and-pencil questionnaires using differential item and test functioning (DIF and DTF) analysis: a case of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ)

OriginalPaper

The association between post-diagnosis health behaviors and long-term quality of life in survivors of ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based longitudinal cohort study

OriginalPaper

PROMIS depression measures perform similarly to legacy measures relative to a structured diagnostic interview for depression in cancer patients

OriginalPaper

Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement

OriginalPaper

Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation