Abstract：
The current guidance for selection of recall periods recommends considering the design of the study, nature of the condition, patient\'s burden and ability to recall, and intent of the outcome measure. Empirical study of the accuracy of recall periods is recommended; however, there is not consensus on how to quantitatively evaluate the consistency of results from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with different recall periods. We conducted a systematic review to describe quantitative methods for evaluating results obtained from PROMs with differing recall periods to lay the groundwork for establishing consensus.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and American Psychological Association PsycINFO for studies where participants are given the same health-related measure (eg, quality of life, well-being, functioning, and pain) with differing recall periods.
A total of 7174 abstracts were screened. The 30 included studies reflected a wide range of domains, including pain, fatigue, and sexual behavior and function. The recall periods ranged from momentary to 6 months. The analytic approaches varied, including different methods for assessing relative agreement, absolute agreement, and for assessing combined relative and absolute agreement.
We found variability in how PROM recall periods were evaluated, suggesting an opportunity for greater consensus on methodological approach. As a starting point, we provide recommendations for which methods are preferred for which contexts.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and American Psychological Association PsycINFO for studies where participants are given the same health-related measure (eg, quality of life, well-being, functioning, and pain) with differing recall periods.
A total of 7174 abstracts were screened. The 30 included studies reflected a wide range of domains, including pain, fatigue, and sexual behavior and function. The recall periods ranged from momentary to 6 months. The analytic approaches varied, including different methods for assessing relative agreement, absolute agreement, and for assessing combined relative and absolute agreement.
We found variability in how PROM recall periods were evaluated, suggesting an opportunity for greater consensus on methodological approach. As a starting point, we provide recommendations for which methods are preferred for which contexts.
摘要：
目的：当前的召回期选择指南建议考虑研究的设计，条件的性质，患者的负担和回忆能力，和结果度量的意图。建议对召回期的准确性进行实证研究；然而，对于如何定量评估不同召回期患者报告结局指标(PROMs)结果的一致性,目前尚无共识.我们进行了系统的审查，以描述评估从不同召回期的PROM获得的结果的定量方法，为建立共识奠定基础。
方法：我们搜索了MEDLINE，Embase,Scopus,和APAPsycINFO用于研究参与者被给予相同的健康相关措施(例如，生活质量,幸福,功能,和痛苦)有不同的召回期。
结果：共筛选了7,174篇摘要。纳入的30项研究反映了广泛的领域，包括疼痛,疲劳,性行为和性功能。召回期从短暂到六个月不等。分析方法各不相同，包括评估相对协议的不同方法，绝对协议，并用于评估相对和绝对一致性。
结论：我们发现评估PROM召回期的方式存在差异，建议有机会就方法论方法达成更大的共识。作为起点,我们提供了哪些方法更适合哪些环境的建议。
方法：我们搜索了MEDLINE，Embase,Scopus,和APAPsycINFO用于研究参与者被给予相同的健康相关措施(例如，生活质量,幸福,功能,和痛苦)有不同的召回期。
结果：共筛选了7,174篇摘要。纳入的30项研究反映了广泛的领域，包括疼痛,疲劳,性行为和性功能。召回期从短暂到六个月不等。分析方法各不相同，包括评估相对协议的不同方法，绝对协议，并用于评估相对和绝对一致性。
结论：我们发现评估PROM召回期的方式存在差异，建议有机会就方法论方法达成更大的共识。作为起点,我们提供了哪些方法更适合哪些环境的建议。
