Table 3.
Quality analysis of content development for 18 fatigue PRO instruments
| PRO instrument | Constructa | Conceptual framework | Target population | Context of use | Development sample | Qualitative work | Literature review | Total COSMIN scoreb |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MFSS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| VAS-F | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| CFQ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| FAI | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| FIS | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| MFI | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| MFIS | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 |
| FDS | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
| SOFA-GP | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| IFS | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| FAS | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| FSMC | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 11 |
| U-FIS | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| NFI-MS | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 15 |
| PROMIS Fatigue MS | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 14 |
| FSIQ-RMS | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 17 |
| SFQ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
3 = Good, 2 = Adequate, 1 = Doubtful, 0 = Poor/none
aDefinitions of fatigue from PRO instrument development papers are available in Table S3
bOrdinarily, COSMIN assessment is not scored, and instead utilises a ‘worst score counts’ approach. However, we nonetheless produced a ‘total score’, thus enabling us to evaluate how PRO development standards have changed over time (see Fig. 2); these scores should not be interpreted as a ‘recommendation’ for higher scoring PROs