Cited by 3,345Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeDelphi Technique in Research

COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

Open access
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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. METHODS: Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. RESULTS: A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1-4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5-8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 COSMIN guidelines emphasize the value of modern psychometric methods, such as Rasch analysis and IRT, in assessing measurement properties like structural validity and reliability at the item level.

    “The COSMIN guidelines (Prinsen et al., 2018) emphasize the value of modern psychometric methods, such as Rasch analysis and IRT, in assessing measurement properties like structural validity and reliability at the item level.”

    From Measuring mindfulness: A systematic review and evaluation of self-report mindfulness scales (2026) · cites this paper as Prinsen et al., 2018

    In Results, Part B, step 6.1, the guideline says structural validity is usually assessed by factor analysis or IRT/Rasch analysis. But step 7 places reliability among properties evaluated for the scale or subscale as a whole, rather than at the item level. The cited paper therefore supports the structural-validity part, not item-level reliability; page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Because no studies assessed the unidimensionality of SF-36 subscales, internal consistency results cannot provide evidence in support of this measurement property.

    “According to recent COSMIN guidance [24], because no studies assessed the unidimensionality of the SF-36 subscales, these results cannot provide evidence in support of this measurement property.”
  • This SF-12 internal consistency study does not represent evidence on this measurement property because the unidimensionality of these scores was not assessed in any study.

    “This study does not represent evidence on this measurement property because the unidimensionality of these scores was not assessed in any study [24].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [9]Mokkink, L. B., Prinsen, C. A., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., de Vet, H. C., & Terwee, C. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) – user manual. http://www.cosmin.nl/. PMC5891568 29435801
  2. [18]Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2017). COSMIN standards and criteria for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. (Submitted to Quality of Life Research). PMC5891557 29550964
  3. [20]Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration (2011). http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 5 Feb 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Municipal Institute for Medical Research (ES)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Prinsen, C. A. C.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2018-02-12
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
1147-1157
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2793320726
Cited by
3,345
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 467 · 2025: 473 · 2024: 634 · 2023: 455 · 2022: 457 · 2021: 436 · 2020: 266 · 2019: 125 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 1
FWCI
42.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission (2007–2013, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007, 305081)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
patient-reported outcome measures, systematic review methodology, measurement properties, COSMIN, health measurement instruments, methodological quality assessment, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Humans, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Guidelines as Topic

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