For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
584
views
10
references
 Top references
cited by
657
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    16
    shares
      200
      similar
       All similar
      • 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.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

          J Bland, D Altman (1986)
          In clinical measurement comparison of a new measurement technique with an established one is often needed to see whether they agree sufficiently for the new to replace the old. Such investigations are often analysed inappropriately, notably by using correlation coefficients. The use of correlation is misleading. An alternative approach, based on graphical techniques and simple calculations, is described, together with the relation between this analysis and the assessment of repeatability.
          Article 0 comments Cited 2555 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria.

            Silvia Evers, Mariëlle E.J.B. Goossens, Henrica de Vet … (2005)
            The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard. The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel. The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items. There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely from http://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.
            Article 0 comments Cited 221 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia.

              B M Fenton, Andrew C. Adams, Diana M Marshall … (2000)
              A recent review suggested an association between using unpublished scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. To determine whether such an association existed in schizophrenia trials. Three hundred trials were randomly selected from the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register. All comparisons between treatment groups and control groups using rating scales were identified. The publication status of each scale was determined and claims of a significant treatment effect were recorded. Trials were more likely to report that a treatment was superior to control when an unpublished scale was used to make the comparison (relative risk 1.37 (95% CI 1.12-1.68)). This effect increased when a 'gold-standard' definition of treatment superiority was applied (RR 1.94 (95% CI 1.35-2.79)). In non-pharmacological trials, one-third of 'gold-standard' claims of treatment superiority would not have been made if published scales had been used. Unpublished scales are a source of bias in schizophrenia trials.
              Article 0 comments Cited 142 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Qual Life Res
                Title: Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
                Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                ISSN (Electronic): 1573-2649
                ISSN (Print): 0962-9343
                Publication date (Electronic): May 2010
                Volume: 19
                Issue: 4
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and the EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.mokkink@vumc.nl
                Article
                DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8
                PMC ID: 2852520
                PubMed ID: 20169472
                SO-VID: d5704a0d-60c8-4357-b3ff-47cff6e9736f
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content200

                See all similar

                Cited by1,218

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors549

                See all reference authors