Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist
The COSMIN checklist is a standardized tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. It contains 9 boxes, each dealing with one measurement property, with 5–18 items per box about design aspects and statistical methods. Our aim was to develop a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist to calculate quality scores per measurement property when using the checklist in systematic reviews of measurement properties.
The scoring system was developed based on discussions among experts and testing of the scoring system on 46 articles from a systematic review. Four response options were defined for each COSMIN item (excellent, good, fair, and poor). A quality score per measurement property is obtained by taking the lowest rating of any item in a box (“worst score counts”).
Specific criteria for excellent, good, fair, and poor quality for each COSMIN item are described. In defining the criteria, the “worst score counts” algorithm was taken into consideration. This means that only fatal flaws were defined as poor quality. The scores of the 46 articles show how the scoring system can be used to provide an overview of the methodological quality of studies included in a systematic review of measurement properties.
Based on experience in testing this scoring system on 46 articles, the COSMIN checklist with the proposed scoring system seems to be a useful tool for assessing the methodological quality of studies included in systematic reviews of measurement properties.
- Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., Riphagen, I., et al. (2009). Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Quality of Life Research, 18, 313–333. CrossRef
- Higgins, J. P. T. & Green, S. (Eds.). (2009). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. (Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org: Cochrane Collaboration).
- Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2006). Quality of life in older people: A structured review of self-assessed health instruments. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 6, 181–194. CrossRef
- Alla, S., Sullivan, S. J., Hale, L., & McCrory, P. (2009). Self-report scales/checklists for the measurement of concussion symptoms: a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43(Suppl 1), i3–i12. CrossRef
- Marinus, J., Ramaker, C., van Hilten, J. J., & Stiggelbout, A. M. (2002). Health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease: A systematic review of disease specific instruments. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 72, 241–248. CrossRef
- Wind, H., Gouttebarge, V., Kuijer, P. P. F. M., & Frings-Dresen, M. H. W. (2005). Assessment of functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system in the context of work, daily living, and sport: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15, 253–272. CrossRef
- Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549. CrossRef
- 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 Methodeology, 10, 22. CrossRef
- Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Heymans, M. W., Koes, B. W., de Vet, H. C. W., & Terwee, C. B. (2011). Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Quality of Life Research. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9965-9.
- Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- de Vet, H. C. W., Ader, H. J., Terwee, C. B., & Pouwer, F. (2005). Are factor analytical techniques appropriately used in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analyses of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1203–1218. CrossRef
- de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. J. (2011). Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
- Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Onso-Coello, P., et al. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal, 336, 924–926. CrossRef
- Furlan, A. D., Pennick, V., Bombardier, C., & van Tulder, M. (2009). 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 34, 1929–1941.
- Terwee, C. B., Schellingerhout, J. M., Verhagen, A. P., Koes, B. W., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2011). Methodological quality of studies on the measurement properties of neck pain and disability questionnaires: a systematic review. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 34, 261–272. CrossRef
- Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–205. CrossRef
- Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendivil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11, 700–708. CrossRef
- Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42. CrossRef
- Brozek, J. L., Akl, E. A., Jaeschke, R., Lang, D. M., Bossuyt, P., Glasziou, P., et al. (2009). Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy, 64, 1109–1116. CrossRef
- Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist
- Open Access
- Available under Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Quality of Life Research
Volume 21, Issue 4 , pp 651-657
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Reproducibility of results
- Validation studies
- Outcome assessment
- Systematic review
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 2. Department of Health Sciences and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- 3. Executive Board of VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands