IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179733.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
  • Derek Kyte
  • Paul Cockwell
  • Tom Marshall
  • Adrian Gheorghe
  • Thomas Keeley
  • Anita Slade
  • Melanie Calvert

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide valuable information which may assist with the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, given the large number of measures available, it is unclear which PROMs are suitable for use in research or clinical practice. To address this we comprehensively evaluated studies that assessed the measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CKD. Methods: Four databases were searched; reference list and citation searching of included studies was also conducted. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies and to inform a best evidence synthesis for each PROM. Results: The search strategy retrieved 3,702 titles/abstracts. After 288 duplicates were removed, 3,414 abstracts were screened and 71 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 24 full-text articles were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Following reference list and citation searching, 19 articles were retrieved bringing the total number of papers included in the final analysis to 66. There was strong evidence supporting internal consistency and moderate evidence supporting construct validity for the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) in pre-dialysis patients. In the dialysis population, the KDQOL-Short Form (KDQOL-SF) had strong evidence for internal consistency and structural validity and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability and construct validity while the KDQOL-36 had moderate evidence of internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The End Stage Renal Disease-Symptom Checklist Transplantation Module (ESRD-SCLTM) demonstrated strong evidence for internal consistency and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability, structural and construct validity in renal transplant recipients. Conclusions: We suggest considering the KDQOL-36 for use in pre-dialysis patients; the KDQOL-SF or KDQOL-36 for dialysis patients and the ESRD-SCLTM for use in transplant recipients. However, further research is required to evaluate the measurement error, structural validity, responsiveness and patient acceptability of PROMs used in CKD.

Suggested Citation

  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Derek Kyte & Paul Cockwell & Tom Marshall & Adrian Gheorghe & Thomas Keeley & Anita Slade & Melanie Calvert, 2017. "Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-27, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179733
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179733
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179733
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179733&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179733?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179733. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.