The quality of systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments

Ref ID	153
First Author	C. B. Terwee
Journal	QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
Year Of Publishing	2016
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4830864/pdf/11136_2015_Article_1122.pdf
Keywords	• General medical • Risk of bias • Searching • Single reviewer
Problem(s)	• Insufficient literature searches • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Inconclusive or lack of recommendations • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Number of systematic reviews included	102
Summary of Findings	Despite a clear improvement in conduct, since the study by Mokkink et al in 2009, of the 102 systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments there were still deficits. The selection of abstracts and full-text articles was performed by at least two reviewers independently in 29% of the reviews. In 41 % of the reviews, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Study quality was only taken in to account into the synthesis of 20% of reviews. In 49 % of the reviews clear recommendations were provided for either one or multiple outcome measurement instruments per construct that were considered the best.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes