Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.
METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies\' findings.
RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.
METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies\' findings.
RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.
摘要：
目的：系统评价和比较结果测量仪器（OMIs）的测量特性在OMI选择中起着重要作用。较早的审查质量概述（2007年，2014年）证明了与科学标准保持一致的重大担忧。本概述旨在调查最近对OMI的系统评价的质量是否符合当前的科学标准。
方法：通过2022年3月17日在MEDLINE和EMBASE进行的系统文献检索，随机选择了从2021年6月1日起发表的100篇OMI系统综述。系统审查的质量由两名独立审查者评估。早期研究提供了更新的数据提取表，并将结果与这些早期研究的结果进行了比较。
结果：四分之一的评论有一个不明确的研究问题或目的，在22％的评论中，搜索策略与目标不符。一半的评论有一个不全面的搜索策略，因为不包括相关的搜索条件。在63％的审查中（2014年为41％，2007年为30％）进行了偏见风险评估。在73％的评论（一些）中，对测量属性进行了评估（2014年为58％，2007年为55％）。在60％的评论中，数据是（部分）合成的（2014年为42％，2007年为7％）；大多数子量表没有单独进行测量特性和数据合成的评估。仅有33%的综述对总体证据质量进行了确定性评估（2014年和2007年未进行评估）。大多数人(58%)没有就使用哪个OMI(不)提出任何建议。
结论：尽管偏差风险评估有了明显的改善，测量性能评估和数据综合，指定研究问题，执行搜索策略和执行确定性评估仍然很差。为了确保OMI的系统审查符合当前的科学标准，需要更一致地进行和报告OMI的系统审查。
方法：通过2022年3月17日在MEDLINE和EMBASE进行的系统文献检索，随机选择了从2021年6月1日起发表的100篇OMI系统综述。系统审查的质量由两名独立审查者评估。早期研究提供了更新的数据提取表，并将结果与这些早期研究的结果进行了比较。
结果：四分之一的评论有一个不明确的研究问题或目的，在22％的评论中，搜索策略与目标不符。一半的评论有一个不全面的搜索策略，因为不包括相关的搜索条件。在63％的审查中（2014年为41％，2007年为30％）进行了偏见风险评估。在73％的评论（一些）中，对测量属性进行了评估（2014年为58％，2007年为55％）。在60％的评论中，数据是（部分）合成的（2014年为42％，2007年为7％）；大多数子量表没有单独进行测量特性和数据合成的评估。仅有33%的综述对总体证据质量进行了确定性评估（2014年和2007年未进行评估）。大多数人(58%)没有就使用哪个OMI(不)提出任何建议。
结论：尽管偏差风险评估有了明显的改善，测量性能评估和数据综合，指定研究问题，执行搜索策略和执行确定性评估仍然很差。为了确保OMI的系统审查符合当前的科学标准，需要更一致地进行和报告OMI的系统审查。
