4.7 Article

Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Pruritus: An Updated Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY
卷 142, 期 2, 页码 343-354

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2021.06.032

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review provides an update on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for pruritus. The review includes 41 studies evaluating 38 different measures, with mixed results in the methodological quality of the studies. It identifies the most appropriate measures for assessing pruritus severity and pruritus-specific health-related QOL.
This systematic review aims to provide an update on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for pruritus. A Medline literature search was conducted to update the systematic review published in this journal in 2017 and to identify new validation studies published between October 2015 and July 2019. The methodological quality of validation studies was assessed on the basis of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, and the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. A total of 19 new studies were included and added to the 22 studies identified in the previously published review. Evidence from all the 41 studies evaluating 38 different measures was summarized. Outcome measures were mapped to one of three constructs where possible: pruritus intensity, pruritus severity, pruritus-specific health-related QOL. COSMIN rating revealed mixed results, with deficiencies in the methodological quality of many studies across all constructs. The most appropriate pruritus severity measure was the Itch Severity Scale. ItchyQoL and the disease-specific Uremic Pruritus in Dialysis Scale achieved the most promising results considering the construct pruritus-specific health-related QOL. For pruritus intensity, nine measures performed similarly well.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据