IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0253857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review assessing the quality of patient reported outcomes measures in dry eye diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Alberto Recchioni
  • Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
  • Samantha Cruz-Rivera
  • Saaeha Rauz
  • Anita Slade

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide valuable insights on the impact of a disease or treatment on a patient’s health-related quality of life. In ophthalmology, particularly in dry eye disease (DED) and ocular surface disease (OSD), it is unclear whether the available PROMs were developed using comprehensive guidelines. To address this, we evaluated the methodological quality of studies assessing the psychometric properties of PROMs in DED and OSD [PROSPERO registration number CRD42019142328]. 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 quality of the studies evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs used in DED and OSD. Results: The search strategy (S3 Table) retrieved 5,761 records, 573 duplicates were removed, 5,188 abstracts were screened and 127 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 118 full-text articles did not meet the eligibility criteria and were excluded. Reference list and citation searching, identified an additional 8 articles bringing the total numbers of papers reviewed to 17. In general, psychometric properties such as content validity, measurement error and structural validity were not assessed by the studies included in this review. Studies reviewing The Impact of Dry Eye on Everyday Life (IDEEL) presented with the highest quality scores together with the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire. Conclusions: The quality of studies evaluating PROMs in DED and OSD was considered using the COSMIN standards. The majority of the studies evaluating PROMs included in this review did not meet the recommended COSMIN criteria and the quality of the PROMs evaluated is not assured. Further evaluation of their psychometric properties is required if these are going to be used in clinical practice or research.

Suggested Citation

  • Alberto Recchioni & Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi & Samantha Cruz-Rivera & Saaeha Rauz & Anita Slade, 2021. "A systematic review assessing the quality of patient reported outcomes measures in dry eye diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-23, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0253857
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253857
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253857&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0253857?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:pone00:0253857. 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.