CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 126

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

Elsman, Ellen B.M., Mokkink, Lidwine B., Terwee, Caroline B., Beaton, Dorcas, Gagnier, Joel J., Tricco, Andrea C., Baba, Ami, Butcher, Nancy J., Smith, Maureen, Hofstetter, Catherine, Lee Aiyegbusi, Olalekan, Berardi, Anna, Farmer, Julie, Haywood, Kirstie L., Krause, Karolin R., Markham, Sarah, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Mehdipour, Ava, Ricketts, Juanna, Szatmari, Peter, Touma, Zahi, Moher, David, Offringa, Martin·2024·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111422
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111422

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Development process of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. E&E explanation and elaboration; EQUATOR Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research; OMI outcome measurement instrument. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Figure 1 Development process of PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. E&E explanation and elaboration; EQUATOR Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research; OMI outcome measurement instrument. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Proposals and consensus for items in each Delphi round and the workgroup meeting. COSMIN COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; OMI outcome measurement instrument; PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Figure 2 Proposals and consensus for items in each Delphi round and the workgroup meeting. COSMIN COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; OMI outcome measurement instrument; PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)CC-BY · From the PDF
Image 3
CC-BY · From the PDF

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.

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Nelson, 2015, Patient reported outcome measures in practice, BMJ, 350, g7818, 10.1136/bmj.g7818 · DOI
  2. Stephenson, 2020, Chapter 12: systematic reviews of measurement properties
  3. Terwee, 2016, The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments, Qual Life Res, 25, 767, 10.1007/s11136-015-1122-4 · DOI
  4. Lorente, 2020, Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review, BMJ Open, 10, 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036038 · DOI
  5. McKenna, 2021, Setting and maintaining standards for patient-reported outcome measures: can we rely on the COSMIN checklists?, J Med Econ, 24, 502, 10.1080/13696998.2021.1907092 · DOI
  6. Altman, 2014, Using reporting guidelines effectively to ensure good reporting of health research, Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: A User's Manual, 25, 32
  7. Moher, 2010, Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines, PLoS Med, 7, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Moher, 2009, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Ann Intern Med, 151, 264, 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Elsman, 2024, A blueprint for patient and public involvement in the development of a reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs, Res Involv Engagem, 10, 10.1186/s40900-024-00563-5 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Staniszewska, 2017, GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research, BMJ, 3
  11. Elsman, 2022, Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, Syst Rev, 11, 121, 10.1186/s13643-022-01994-5 · DOI
  12. Terwee, 2018, COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a delphi study, Qual Life Res, 27, 1159, 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Prinsen, 2016, How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”–a practical guideline, Trials, 17, 449, 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Schulz, 2010, CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials, Trials, 340, c332
  15. Kottner, 2011, Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed, Int J Nurs Stud, 48, 661, 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.01.016 · DOI
  16. Chan, 2013, SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials, Ann Intern Med, 158, 200, 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Revicki, 2007, Interpreting and reporting results based on patient-reported outcomes, Value Health, 10, S116, 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00274.x · DOI
  18. Staquet, 1996, Guidelines for reporting results of quality of life assessments in clinical trials, Qual Life Res, 5, 496, 10.1007/BF00540022 · DOI
  19. Calvert, 2013, Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension, JAMA, 309, 814, 10.1001/jama.2013.879 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gagnier, 2021, COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures, Qual Life Res, 30, 2197, 10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4 · DOI
  21. Aaronson, 2002, Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria, Qual Life Res, 11, 193, 10.1023/A:1015291021312 · DOI
  22. McInnes, 2018, Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement, JAMA, 319, 388, 10.1001/jama.2017.19163 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Reeve, 2013, ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patientcentered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research, Qual Life Res, 22, 1889, 10.1007/s11136-012-0344-y · DOI
  24. Shamseer, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation, BMJ, 350, g7647, 10.1136/bmj.g7647 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Elsman, 2022, Systematic review on the measurement properties of diabetes-specific patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) for measuring physical functioning in people with type 2 diabetes, BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 10, 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002729 · DOI
  26. Abma, 2021, Measurement properties of the Dutch-flemish patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) physical function item bank and instruments: a systematic review, Health Qual Life Outcome, 19, 1, 10.1186/s12955-020-01647-y · DOI
  27. Mehdipour, 2021, The performance of digital monitoring devices for oxygen saturation and respiratory rate in COPD: a systematic review, COPD, 18, 469, 10.1080/15412555.2021.1945021 · DOI
  28. Mokkink, 2010, The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international delphi study, Qual Life Res, 19, 539, 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Butcher, 2022, Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols: the SPIRIT-outcomes 2022 extension, JAMA, 328, 2345, 10.1001/jama.2022.21243 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Walton, 2015, Clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation— report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment–emerging good practices for outcomes research task force, Value Health, 18, 741, 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.006 · DOI
  31. Boutron, 2022, Chapter 7: considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies
  32. Beaton, 2019, Instrument selection using the OMERACT filter 21: the OMERACT methodology, J Rheumatol, 46, 1028, 10.3899/jrheum.181218 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Lewis, 2021, The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation, Implement Res Pract, 2
  34. Schlussel, 2023, Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations, J Clin Epidemiol, 159, 246, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.018 · DOI
  35. Kane, 2013, The argument-based approach to validation, Sch Psychol Rev, 42, 448, 10.1080/02796015.2013.12087465 · DOI
  36. Weinfurt, 2021, Constructing arguments for the interpretation and use of patient-reported outcome measures in research: an application of modern validity theory, Qual Life Res, 30, 1715, 10.1007/s11136-021-02776-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 126

Metadata

Authors
Elsman, E. B. M., Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Beaton, D., Gagnier, J. J., Tricco, A. C., Baba, A., Butcher, N. J., Smith, M., Hofstetter, C., Lee Aiyegbusi, O., Berardi, A., Farmer, J., Haywood, K. L., Krause, K. R., Markham, S., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mehdipour, A., Ricketts, J., Szatmari, P., Touma, Z., Moher, D., & Offringa, M.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-09
Volume
173
Pages
111422
ISSN
0895-4356
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111422
Cited by
126
References
22
Language
en
Licence
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (452145)

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