Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review.

Patient-reported outcome measures Primary dysmenorrhea Psychometric properties Questionnaire

Journal

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Oct 2023
Historique:
accepted: 12 09 2023
medline: 30 10 2023
pubmed: 30 10 2023
entrez: 30 10 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To conduct a systematic review of the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary dysmenorrhea (PDys) using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology, and to derive recommendations for use of the PROMs. We searched PubMed and Web of Science for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for women with PDys. Applying the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist, we assessed the methodological quality of each included study. We further evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study according to the criteria for good measurement properties, and graded the evidence. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for the use of the included PROMs. Data from seven studies reporting on four PROMs addressing different outcomes were included. Among those, the Adolescent Dysmenorrhic Self-Care Scale (ADSCS) and the on-menses version of the Dysmenorrhea Symptom Interference Scale (DSI) can be recommended for use. The Exercise of Self-Care Agency Scale (ESCAS) and the Dysmenorrhea Daily Diary (DysDD) have the potential to be recommended for use, but require further validation. The off-menses version of the DSI cannot be recommended for use. The ADSCS can be recommended for the assessment of self-care behavior in PDys. Regarding measures of impact, the on-menses version of the DSI is a suitable tool. Covering the broadest spectrum of outcomes, the DysDD is promising for use in medical care and research, encouraging further investigations. Further validation studies are indicated for all included PROMs.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s11136-023-03517-8 PMID: 37902914
pubmed: 37902914
doi: 10.1007/s11136-023-03517-8
pii: 10.1007/s11136-023-03517-8
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Burnett, M., & Lemyre, M. (2017). No 345-primary dysmenorrhea consensus guideline. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: JOGC = Journal d’obstetrique et gynecologie du Canada: JOGC, 39(7), 585–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2016.12.023
doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2016.12.023 pubmed: 28625286
Iacovides, S., Avidon, I., & Baker, F. C. (2015). What we know about primary dysmenorrhea today: A critical review. Human reproduction update, 21(6), 762–778. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv039
doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv039 pubmed: 26346058
Ju, H., Jones, M., & Mishra, G. (2014). The prevalence and risk factors of dysmenorrhea. Epidemiologic Reviews, 36, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxt009
doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxt009 pubmed: 24284871
Itani, R., Soubra, L., Karout, S., Rahme, D., Karout, L., & Khojah, H. M. J. (2022). Primary dysmenorrhea: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment updates. Korean Journal of Family Medicine, 43(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.21.0103
doi: 10.4082/kjfm.21.0103 pubmed: 35320895 pmcid: 8943241
Sharghi, M., Mansurkhani, S. M., Larky, D. A., Kooti, W., Niksefat, M., Firoozbakht, M., et al. (2019). An update and systematic review on the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. JBRA Assisted Reproduction, 23(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20180083
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180083 pubmed: 30521155 pmcid: 6364281
Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E. D., et al. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 24(4), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13254
doi: 10.1111/hex.13254 pubmed: 33949755
Prinsen, C. A. C., Mokkink, L. B., Bouter, L. M., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1147–1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3 pubmed: 29435801
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 pubmed: 20494804
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-22
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22 pubmed: 20298572 pmcid: 2848183
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 pubmed: 33781348 pmcid: 8008539
Mokkink, L. B., de Vet, H. C. W., Prinsen, C. A. C., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Bouter, L. M., et al. (2018). COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4
doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4 pubmed: 29260445
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 pubmed: 27919275 pmcid: 5139140
Terwee, 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). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1159–1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0 pubmed: 29550964
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, De Vet HC, et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)—user manual. https://cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-syst-review-for-PROMs-manual_version-1_feb-2018.pdf
Nguyen, A. M., Humphrey, L., Kitchen, H., Rehman, T., & Norquist, J. M. (2015). A qualitative study to develop a patient-reported outcome for dysmenorrhea. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 24(1), 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0755-z
doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0755-z pubmed: 25048731
Nguyen, A. M., Arbuckle, R., Korver, T., Chen, F., Taylor, B., Turnbull, A., et al. (2017). Psychometric validation of the dysmenorrhea daily diary (DysDD): A patient-reported outcome for dysmenorrhea. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 26(8), 2041–2055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1562-0
doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1562-0 pubmed: 28405780
Wong, C. L., Ip, W. Y., & Shiu, T. Y. (2012). Translation and validation of the Chinese-Cantonese version of the exercise of self-care agency scale. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(9), 1122–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.04.004
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.04.004 pubmed: 22572019
Wong, C. L., Ip, W. Y., Choi, K. C., & Shiu, T. Y. (2013). Translation and validation of the Chinese-Cantonese version of the adolescent dysmenorrhic self-care scale in Hong Kong adolescent girls. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 22(11–12), 1510–1520. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12019
doi: 10.1111/jocn.12019 pubmed: 23228020
Chen, C. X., Murphy, T., Ofner, S., Yahng, L., Krombach, P., LaPradd, M., et al. (2021). Development and testing of the dysmenorrhea symptom interference (DSI) scale. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 43(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945920942252
doi: 10.1177/0193945920942252 pubmed: 32680445
Kearney, B. Y., & Fleischer, B. J. (1979). Development of an instrument to measure exercise of self-care agency. Research in Nursing & Health, 2(1), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770020105
doi: 10.1002/nur.4770020105
Ching-Hsing, H., Meei-Ling, G., Hsin-Chun, M., & Chung-Yi, L. (2004). The development and psychometric testing of a self-care scale for dysmenorrhic adolescents. The Journal of Nursing Research: JNR, 12(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jnr.0000387495.01557.aa
doi: 10.1097/01.jnr.0000387495.01557.aa pubmed: 15208776
Chen, C. X., Kwekkeboom, K. L., & Ward, S. E. (2015). Self-report pain and symptom measures for primary dysmenorrhoea: A critical review. European Journal of Pain (London, England), 19(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.556
doi: 10.1002/ejp.556 pubmed: 25059384
Hartweg, D. L. (1995). Dorothea orem: Self-care deficit theory (notes on nursing theories, Vol. 4). Sage.
Wiering, B., de Boer, D., & Delnoij, D. (2017). Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers’ perspective. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1), 635. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2582-8
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2582-8 pubmed: 28886742 pmcid: 5591531
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (2006). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: Draft guidance. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 79. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-4-79 .
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal: Official Publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 22(2), 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF
doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF pubmed: 17884971

Auteurs

Katharina Piontek (K)

Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. katharina.piontek@med.ovgu.de.
ORCID: 0000-0002-2667-6741

Michaela Gabes (M)

Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Gesina Kann (G)

Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Marie Fechtner (M)

Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Christian Apfelbacher (C)

Institute of Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH