Measurement properties studies of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) aims to validate the measurement properties of PROMs. In the process of designing and statistical analysis of these measurement properties studies, bias will occur if there are any defects, which will affect the quality of PROMs. Therefore, the COSMIN (consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments) team has developed the COSMIN risk of bias (COSMIN-RoB) checklist to evaluate risk of bias of studies on measurement properties of PROMs. The checklist can be used to develop systematic reviews of PROMs measurement properties, and for PROMs developers, it can also be used to guide the research design in the measurement tool development process for reducing bias. At present, similar assessment tools are lacking in China. Therefore, this article aims to introduce the primary contents of COSMIN-RoB checklist and to interpret how to evaluate risk of bias of the internal structure studies of PROMs with examples.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the research on pediatric treatment satisfaction of medication (TS-M). MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI databases and medical scale websites were electronically searched to collect studies on pediatric TS-M from inception to November 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, and extracted data. Using descriptive analysis, we comprehensively reviewed the TS-M assessment tool selected for the studies of children. We evaluated the methodological quality and measurement properties of existing TS-M scales for children using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) assessment criteria. ResultsA total of 157 studies were included, including 150 pediatric studies using TS-M evaluation tools and 7 studies on the development and validation of TS-M scales for children, covering 7 specific TS-M scales for children. Our review revealed that 67.3% of the pediatric studies used unvalidated self-administered TS-M questionnaires or interviews, 24.7% used adult TS-M scales, and only 6.0% used two pediatric-specific TS-M scales. The results of the quality assessment indicated that the development quality of existing TS-M pediatric scales was considered "doubtful" or "inadequate", and the internal consistency was "sufficient" but the structural validity was probably "uncertain". High-quality research on the content validity, test-retest reliability and construct validity of the pediatric TS-M scale was still lacking. ConclusionCurrently, the use of TS-M evaluation tools in pediatric studies has irrationalities: over 90% of pediatric studies use self-made questionnaires or adult scales to evaluate children's TS-M; and the existing pediatric TS-M scales globally have narrow applications, questionable development quality, and lack some measurement performance studies. Pediatric TS-M scales with a wide range of applications are lacking.