Quality of patient-reported outcome measures for acute bronchitis: a systematic review of instruments and measurement properties
Authors:
Donhauser, T., Piontek, K., Baalmann, A. K., and Apfelbacher, C.
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized questionnaires for the assessment of health outcomes directly from the patient. A systematic evaluation of the quality of PROMs for acute bronchitis (AB) and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold has not yet been performed. The present study aimed to systematically review the quality of available PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold for use in adults and children.
METHODOLOGY: Embase, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PROMs for AB and acute cough due to (lower) respiratory tract infection or common cold. We assessed the methodological quality of each included study, evaluated the quality of measurement properties per PROM and study, and graded the evidence according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Based on the overall evidence, we derived recommendations for use of the instruments.
RESULTS: We included three studies on three PROMs for adults measuring disease severity (Acute Bronchitis Severity Score (ABSS); Symptom Diary) and cough-related quality of life (Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ-acute)). For children, we included two studies on two PROMs assessing quality of life (Parent-proxy Children's Acute Cough-specific QoL Questionnaire (PAC-QoL(16)) and its Short Form (PAC-QoL(6))), and one study on a PROM assessing cold symptoms (Child Cold Symptom Questionnaire (CCSQ)). All instruments were classified as COSMIN category B except for the PAC-QoL(6), indicating that they have the potential to be recommended, but require further validation. The PAC-QoL(6) cannot be recommended for use (COSMIN category C). Content validity is a shortcoming of all identified PROMs.
CONCLUSIONS: None of the identified PROMs can be unrestrictedly recommended for use in future research. For adults, the LCQ-acute appears the most suitable tool warranting further validation. Given the intensive work on scale development and testing for PROM design, the CCSQ is promising for use in children. Content validity assessments involving patients and experts are highly recommended for all identified PROMs.