1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals: A systematic review protocol using the COSMIN checklist

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Society has been increasingly concerned about the impact of pain on farm animal welfare. This systematic review aims to provide evidence relating to the measurement properties (i.e. reliability, validity, and sensitivity) of pain scoring instruments used for pain assessment in farm animals. A literature search will be performed using five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CAB abstracts and Biological Abstracts) and search terms related to pain, pain scales and different species of farm animals. Eligibility criteria will include full-text studies on the development and/or validation of acute and chronic pain scoring instruments for farm animals including bovine (beef and dairy), ovine, caprine, camel, swine and poultry. Exclusion criteria will include studies that report the use of pain scales for the validation of another instrument, or those reporting ethograms/list of behaviors potentially indicating pain without a scoring system. Study titles and their abstracts will be screened for eligibility by one investigator. Full-text articles will be independently reviewed for eligibility and evaluated by two investigators. Relevant information will be recorded and evaluated systematically according to the Consensus‐based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist using an adapted data collection sheet. The following measurement properties and characteristics of the instruments will be assessed: content validity (internal consistency, structural and cross-cultural validity), reliability, measurement error, criterion and construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability and feasibility. Following the assessment of methodological quality and quality of the findings, evidence for each measurement property will be summarized into high, moderate, low or very low. This systematic review will provide further insights into the evidence-based measurement properties of pain scoring instruments in farm animals. It may identify possible gaps of knowledge with these tools as a potential target for future studies in farm animals with a positive impact on animal welfare.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures

          Purpose Systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ from reviews of interventions and diagnostic test accuracy studies and are complex. In fact, conducting a review of one or more PROMs comprises of multiple reviews (i.e., one review for each measurement property of each PROM). In the absence of guidance specifically designed for reviews on measurement properties, our aim was to develop a guideline for conducting systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods Based on literature reviews and expert opinions, and in concordance with existing guidelines, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) steering committee developed a guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. Results A consecutive ten-step procedure for conducting a systematic review of PROMs is proposed. Steps 1–4 concern preparing and performing the literature search, and selecting relevant studies. Steps 5–8 concern the evaluation of the quality of the eligible studies, the measurement properties, and the interpretability and feasibility aspects. Steps 9 and 10 concern formulating recommendations and reporting the systematic review. Conclusions The COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs includes methodology to combine the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties with the quality of the PROM itself (i.e., its measurement properties). This enables reviewers to draw transparent conclusions and making evidence-based recommendations on the quality of PROMs, and supports the evidence-based selection of PROMs for use in research and in clinical practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study

            Background Aim of the COSMIN study (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) was to develop a consensus-based checklist to evaluate the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties. We present the COSMIN checklist and the agreement of the panel on the items of the checklist. Methods A four-round Delphi study was performed with international experts (psychologists, epidemiologists, statisticians and clinicians). Of the 91 invited experts, 57 agreed to participate (63%). Panel members were asked to rate their (dis)agreement with each proposal on a five-point scale. Consensus was considered to be reached when at least 67% of the panel members indicated ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Results Consensus was reached on the inclusion of the following measurement properties: internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity (including face validity), construct validity (including structural validity, hypotheses testing and cross-cultural validity), criterion validity, responsiveness, and interpretability. The latter was not considered a measurement property. The panel also reached consensus on how these properties should be assessed. Conclusions The resulting COSMIN checklist could be useful when selecting a measurement instrument, peer-reviewing a manuscript, designing or reporting a study on measurement properties, or for educational purposes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

              Purpose The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. Methods For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Results Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. Conclusions The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                14 May 2021
                2021
                : 16
                : 5
                : e0251435
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Anesthesiology, Medical School (FMB) of São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ] Département de sciences cliniques, Faculté de médecine vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
                [3 ] Department Veterinary Surgery and Animal Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brazil
                Tokat Gaziosmanpasa Universitesi, TURKEY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-6043
                Article
                PONE-D-20-37059
                10.1371/journal.pone.0251435
                8121329
                33989321
                536b631f-67d2-4788-befe-e61bf715d330
                © 2021 Tomacheuski et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 30 November 2020
                : 26 April 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 1, Pages: 9
                Funding
                Funded by: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil
                Award ID: 001
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: The São Paulo Research Foundation FAPESP Thematic Projects
                Award ID: 2017/12815-0
                Award Recipient :
                The work of RT was funded by a scholarship from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil (001) and a grant from The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Projects (2017/12815-0).
                Categories
                Registered Report Protocol
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Signs and Symptoms
                Pain
                Engineering and Technology
                Measurement
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Mammals
                Swine
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animals
                Vertebrates
                Amniotes
                Mammals
                Swine
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Agriculture
                Animal Management
                Livestock
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Nonverbal Communication
                Facial Expressions
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Nonverbal Communication
                Facial Expressions
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Agriculture
                Animal Management
                Animal Welfare
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article