Treatment Outcome Measurement Instruments for Port Wine Stains: A Systematic Review of Their Measurement Properties.
Capillary malformation
Clinical assessment
Clinimetric study
Psychometric evaluation
Quality of life
Journal
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1421-9832
Titre abrégé: Dermatology
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9203244
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
03
05
2020
accepted:
03
09
2020
pubmed:
4
12
2020
medline:
20
11
2021
entrez:
3
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities. This study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence. In total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies. There was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A plethora of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are being used in port wine stain (PWS) studies. It is currently unclear how valid, responsive, and reliable these are.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the content validity and other measurement properties of OMIs for PWS treatment to identify the most appropriate instruments and future research priorities.
METHODS
METHODS
This study was performed using the updated Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches in Medline and Embase were performed. Studies in which an OMI for PWS patients was developed or its measurement properties were evaluated were included. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies and instruments to perform qualitative synthesis of the evidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 1,034 articles were screened, and 77 full-text articles were reviewed. A total of 8 studies were included that reported on 6 physician-reported OMIs of clinical improvement and 6 parent- or patient-reported OMIs of life impact, of which 3 for health-related quality of life and 1 for perceived stigmatization. Overall, the quality of OMI development was inadequate (63%) or doubtful (37%). Each instrument has undergone a very limited evaluation in PWS patients. No content validity studies were performed. The quality of evidence for content validity was very low (78%), low (15%), or moderate (7%), with sufficient comprehensibility, mostly sufficient comprehensiveness, and mixed relevance. No studies on responsiveness, minimal important change, and cross-cultural validity were retrieved. There was moderate- to very low-quality evidence for sufficient inter-rater reliability for some clinical PWS OMIs. Internal consistency and measurement error were indeterminate in all studies.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to properly guide outcome selection. Additional assessment of the measurement properties of OMIs is needed, preferentially guided by a core domain set tailored to PWS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33271556
pii: 000511438
doi: 10.1159/000511438
pmc: PMC8117375
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
416-432Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Références
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1993 Dec;92(7):1233-41; discussion 1242-3
pubmed: 8248398
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Sep 15;108(4):842-7
pubmed: 11547137
Br J Dermatol. 2000 Aug;143(2):360-4
pubmed: 10951146
Acta Derm Venereol. 2005;85(5):409-13
pubmed: 16159732
Pediatr Dermatol. 1999 May-Jun;16(3):190-7
pubmed: 10383773
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Sep;102(4):1210-6; discussion 1217-8
pubmed: 9734447
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Lasers Med Sci. 2010 May;25(3):449-57
pubmed: 20087613
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Dec;67(6):1214-9
pubmed: 22749320
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 May 07;20(9):
pubmed: 31067686
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013 Jan;27(1):109-15
pubmed: 22145712
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2013 Nov-Dec;15(6):434-8
pubmed: 24008312
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1987 Dec;15(4):629-50
pubmed: 3437096
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012 Oct;64(10):1565-75
pubmed: 22511518
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483-494
pubmed: 29411037
AMA Arch Derm Syphilol. 1953 Mar;67(3):302-5
pubmed: 13029926
Br J Dermatol. 1989 Aug;121(2):209-15
pubmed: 2775645
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 2;15(7):e0235657
pubmed: 32614899
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005 Jun;5(3):353-64
pubmed: 19807604
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Nov;103:71-81
pubmed: 30031210
Arch Dermatol. 2012 Nov;148(11):1302-9
pubmed: 22986764
Qual Life Res. 2000;9(8):961-72
pubmed: 11284215
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Trials. 2016 Sep 13;17(1):449
pubmed: 27618914
Qual Life Res. 2009 Oct;18(8):1115-23
pubmed: 19711195
Br J Plast Surg. 1989 Mar;42(2):125-32
pubmed: 2702359
IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2016 May-Jun;2016(3):
pubmed: 27013846
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2018 Apr;20(2):77-84
pubmed: 29384394
Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994 May;19(3):210-6
pubmed: 8033378
Dermatology. 2021;237(3):416-432
pubmed: 33271556
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;59(10):1033-9
pubmed: 16980142
Lasers Surg Med. 2005 Sep;37(3):186-91
pubmed: 16175634
Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Nov;28(6):1567-72
pubmed: 23388877
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015 Feb;72(2):345-8
pubmed: 25486914
Value Health. 2008 Jul-Aug;11(4):645-58
pubmed: 18179669
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Apr;76(4):695-702
pubmed: 27955934
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Dec;96(51):e9446
pubmed: 29390578
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Feb;94(2):287-301
pubmed: 23022091
Psychol Assess. 2006 Mar;18(1):106-11
pubmed: 16594819
Pediatrics. 1976 Aug;58(2):218-22
pubmed: 951136
Dermatology. 1998;197(4):353-60
pubmed: 9873174
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;5(1):210
pubmed: 27919275
J Pediatr Psychol. 2013 Mar;38(2):162-72
pubmed: 23172874
Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998 Jul;102(1):42-8
pubmed: 9655406
Dermatol Surg. 2000 Mar;26(3):190-6
pubmed: 10759791
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2012 Dec;65(12):1664-70
pubmed: 22770573
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Dec;177(6):1601-1611
pubmed: 28599054
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:84-92
pubmed: 29288712
Ann Plast Surg. 2008 Apr;60(4):426-30
pubmed: 18362573
J Dermatolog Treat. 2013 Feb;24(1):50-9
pubmed: 22007701
Br J Plast Surg. 1997 Sep;50(6):463-7
pubmed: 9326151
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1159-1170
pubmed: 29550964
Dermatology. 1997;194(2):127-30
pubmed: 9094459
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Jul;33(7):1369-1377
pubmed: 30908756
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2017 Nov;19(7):418-421
pubmed: 28657379
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Acta Derm Venereol. 2006;86(3):284-5; author reply 285-6
pubmed: 16710607