You are here

Responses

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Research methods
Protocol
Tools to assess the measurement properties of quality of life instruments: a meta-review protocol
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 24 September 2020
    Needed: guidance for reporting knowledge synthesis studies on measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments in health research
    • Nancy J. Butcher, Meta-researcher Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute
    • Other Contributors:
      • Andrea Monsour, Research Manager
      • Lidwine B. Mokkink, Epidemiologist
      • Caroline B. Terwee, Epidemiologist
      • Andrea C. Tricco, Scientist and Director
      • Joel Gagnier, Clinical Epidemiologist
      • Martin Offringa, Senior Scientist and Neonatologist

    To the editor:

    Lorente et al. identified significant heterogeneity in the tools, procedures, and definitions used by systematic reviewers to evaluate instrument measurement properties and highlighted key omissions in the reported methodological information in nearly 250 published systematic reviews on quality of life instruments.1 As we encounter with other health outcome measurement instruments used in child health and mental health research, poor compliance with methodological or reporting guidance in published reports impedes appraisal of the quality of the instruments’ measurement properties.2-6 This impairs knowledge users’ (such as policy-makers, other researchers, patients, healthcare providers) comprehensive appraisal of the sufficiency of the instruments that are used in studies or that are recommended to be used, as related to their key measurement properties and to issues of feasibility, burden, and fairness.

    The authors raised important points concerning the current shortcomings of systematic reviews conducted to assess measurement properties of instruments. Lorente et al. concluded that improved adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines for the conduct and dissemination of systematic reviews on measurement properties of instruments is urgently needed. They recommended the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist as the optimal framework to be used to conduct high-quality systemat...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.