6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating traditional Chinese medicine diagnostic instruments for functional dyspepsia: systematic review on measurement properties

      review-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

          Background

          Pattern diagnosis-guided treatments in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been recognised by the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Accurate pattern diagnosis requires reliable and valid diagnostic instruments that guide the collection of TCM clinical data without bias. This study synthesised the existing TCM diagnostic instruments for functional dyspepsia (FD) and appraised their quality regarding their development process and measurement properties.

          Methods

          Seven electronic databases were searched for validation studies on TCM diagnostic instruments for FD. Synthesis and appraisal of the included studies were performed following the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) Initiative guidelines adapted for TCM diagnostic instruments. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist.

          Results

          Five studies were included, with five unique TCM diagnostic instruments for FD identified. All five diagnostic instruments were of inadequate quality in terms of their development process, implying a shortcoming in their relevance, comprehensibility, and comprehensiveness. Only the criterion validity of Stomach Qi Deficiency Pattern Assessment Scale was of sufficient quality and had no risk of bias in its validation.

          Conclusion

          The quality of TCM diagnostic instruments for FD warrants urgent improvements. None of them was considered reliable or valid for guiding TCM pattern diagnosis. To support the evidence base of the standardization of TCM patterns in ICD-11, TCM diagnostic instruments should be developed and validated rigorously under the COSMIN guidelines. Amendments should be made on the guidelines to accommodate the features and uniqueness of TCM diagnostic process.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

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

              COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

              Background Content validity is the most important measurement property of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and the most challenging to assess. Our aims were to: (1) develop standards for evaluating the quality of PROM development; (2) update the original COSMIN standards for assessing the quality of content validity studies of PROMs; (3) develop criteria for what constitutes good content validity of PROMs, and (4) develop a rating system for summarizing the evidence on a PROM’s content validity and grading the quality of the evidence in systematic reviews of PROMs. Methods An online 4-round Delphi study was performed among 159 experts from 21 countries. Panelists rated the degree to which they (dis)agreed to proposed standards, criteria, and rating issues on 5-point rating scales (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’), and provided arguments for their ratings. Results Discussion focused on sample size requirements, recording and field notes, transcribing cognitive interviews, and data coding. After four rounds, the required 67% consensus was reached on all standards, criteria, and rating issues. After pilot-testing, the steering committee made some final changes. Ten criteria for good content validity were defined regarding item relevance, appropriateness of response options and recall period, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of the PROM. Discussion The consensus-based COSMIN methodology for content validity is more detailed, standardized, and transparent than earlier published guidelines, including the previous COSMIN standards. This methodology can contribute to the selection and use of high-quality PROMs in research and clinical practice. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Integr Med Res
                Integr Med Res
                Integrative Medicine Research
                Elsevier
                2213-4220
                2213-4239
                24 December 2020
                September 2021
                24 December 2020
                : 10
                : 3
                : 100713
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
                [b ]The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
                [c ]Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Hunan, China
                [d ]The Institute of Medical Informatics, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan
                [e ]The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong, China
                [f ]School of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
                [g ]Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong
                [h ]Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: School of Public Health and Primary Care, Prince of Wales Hospital, Room 413, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. vchung@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk
                Article
                S2213-4220(20)30350-4 100713
                10.1016/j.imr.2020.100713
                7903347
                33665098
                ac4527bd-67a5-4f24-a9ac-395e9ab7ae0e
                © 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 30 October 2020
                : 8 December 2020
                : 20 December 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                medicine,chinese traditional,dyspepsia,systematic review,validation study,psychometrics,surveys and questionnaires

                Comments

                Comment on this article