Table 1.
Data synthesis, levels of evidence and overall quality of reviewed PROMs in the headache population (n = 23)a. Note: CHESS PROMs Review – edited 27/07/17.
| Reliability |
Validity |
Construct validity |
Responsiveness |
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PROMb/study | Number of evaluations | Internal consistency | Temporal stability | Measurement error | Content validity | Structural validity | Hypothesis testing | Known groups | Responsiveness | Interpretation |
| Condition-specific (17) | ||||||||||
| Migraine impact (5/17) | ||||||||||
| FAIM (33) | 1 | + Moderate | ? Limited | + Moderate | + Moderate | |||||
| HANA (34) | 1 | + Unknown | + Unknown | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ES only | ||
| MIDAS (35) | 13 | + Unknown | + Unknown | + Moderate | + Moderate | |||||
| MSQ v2.1 (36) | 11 | + Strong | ± Conflicting | + Limited | + Strong | + Moderate | + Moderate | + Limited | ||
| MSQoL (37) | 3 | + Limited | + Strong | + Moderate | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | |||
| Headache-impact (6/11) | ||||||||||
| EUROLIGHT (28) | 1 | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ? Limited | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ||||
| HADLI (29) | 1 | + Limited | ? Unknown | + Limited | ||||||
| HDQ (30) | 1 | + Limited | ? Unknown | + Limited | ||||||
| HIT (3,57) | 3 | + Moderate | + Limited | + Moderate | + Moderate | + Moderate | ||||
| HIT-6 (31) | 13 | + Strong | + Moderate | + Limited | + Moderate | + Strong | + Strong | + Limited | ||
| SF-36 ‘Headache’ Modification (32) | 1 | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | |||||||
| Response to migraine-specific treatment (6/17) | ||||||||||
| CORS (38) | 1 | + Limited | + Moderate | + Limited | ? Limited | + Limited | ||||
| M-ACT (39) | 2 | + Moderate | ? Unknown | ? Unknown | ||||||
| M-TAQ (40) | 1 | + Limited | + Limited | + Limited | ||||||
| M-TOQ (41) | 1 | + Limited | + Limited | + Limited | + Limited | + Limited | ||||
| MTSM (42) | 2 | + Limited | + Moderate | + Limited | + Moderate | + Moderate | ||||
| PPMQ-R (43) | 2 | + Strong | + Limited | + Strong | + Strong | + Strong | + Strong | + Limited | ||
| Generic measures (6) | ||||||||||
| Profile measures (3/6) | ||||||||||
| SF-36 (44) | 5 | + Moderate | ||||||||
| SF-12 (45) | 1 | + Limited | ||||||||
| SF-8 (46) | 4 | + Moderate | + Moderate | |||||||
| Utility measures (3/6) | ||||||||||
| EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L (47) | 3 | + Limited | + Limited | |||||||
| HUI-3 (48) | 1 | ? Unknown | ||||||||
| QWB/QWB-SA (49,50) | 1 | ± Conflicting | ? Unknown | |||||||
Data synthesis: The data were qualitatively synthesised to determine the overall quality of measurement properties and acceptability of each reviewed PROM. The synthesis took the following factors into account: a) methodological quality of the reviewed studies (COSMIN scores); b) the number of studies reporting evidence of measurement properties per PROM; c) the results for each measurement property for each PROM; and d) the consistency of results between reviewed studies.
The data synthesis score has two elements (19,27): First, the overall quality of a measurement property was reported as: adequate (+), not adequate (−), conflicting (±), or unclear/indeterminate (?) (see Table 1 for detail). Second, levels of evidence for the overall quality of each measurement property were further defined to indicate ‘strong’ – consistent findings in multiple studies of good methodological quality OR in one study of excellent quality; ‘moderate’ – consistent findings in multiple studies of fair methodological quality OR in one study of good methodological quality; ‘limited’ – one study of fair methodological quality; ‘conflicting’ – conflicting findings; or ‘unknown’ evidence – only studies of poor methodological quality. Where the data entry box is left blank, this signifies no available evidence.