The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The strength that enhanced the clinical significance of this study was its robust design following the latest COSMIN guidelines [17].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The sample size of this study was set at 120 because this number met the COSMIN guideline criteria for “very good” (7 times the number of items and at least 100) [17].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This study was based on classical test theory according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) study design checklist, which is recommended when designing studies to evaluate the measurement properties of existing patient-reported outcome measures [17].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study that developed and tested the validity and reliability of a Japanese version of the TAQ in accordance with the latest COSMIN guidelines [17].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The target number of respondents for the retest sample was >50 [17].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the citing paper
“The risk of bias of the studies on the other measurement properties was also assessed with the COSMIN risk of bias checklist [23].”
From Evidence on the measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments is largely missing in patients with low back pain: A systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Self-citationWhat is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
Cortina, J. M. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 · Cited by 8,810 · cited 1×
“For example, Cronbach’s alpha can only be interpreted as a measure of internal consistency when the scale or subscale is unidimensional [18].”
BackgroundMokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 · Cited by 4,465
Self-citationMokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2010) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · Cited by 4,260
Self-citationCOSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 · Cited by 3,345
Self-citationTerwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A. C., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C. W., & Mokkink, L. B. (2018) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 · Cited by 2,348
Self-citationAssessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria
Lohr, K. N. (2002) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/a:1015291021312 · Cited by 2,281
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W. J. G., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2012) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1 · Cited by 1,978
Self-citationIncreasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M. A., Khoury, M. J., Macleod, M. R., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Tibshirani, R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62227-8 · Cited by 1,597
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Barrett, K., O'Connor, M., & McHugh, L. (2020) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.12.009 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- University of Washington (US)
- Municipal Institute for Medical Research (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Mokkink, L. B.
- Venue
- Quality of Life Research
- Published
- 2017-12-19
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1171-1179
- ISSN
- 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-2649
- PMC
- PMC5891552
- OpenAlex
- W2779791612
- Cited by
- 2,479
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 302 · 2025: 341 · 2024: 441 · 2023: 346 · 2022: 353 · 2021: 321 · 2020: 238 · 2019: 105 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 25.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- COSMIN, risk of bias, patient-reported outcome measures, measurement properties, systematic review methodology, checklist adaptation, item response theory, construct validity, responsiveness, hand osteoarthritis, methodological quality assessment
- MeSH terms
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Health Status, Humans, Quality of Life, Bias, Databases, Factual, Consensus, Checklist
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
