A highly sensitive searching filter for reviews and meta-analysis developed by the information services team of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was used to refine the search (CADTH, 2014), which was not limited by date or language restrictions. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scharr HUD electronic databases were investigated. In addition, references of the included reviews were screened and a complementary search on Google Scholar was performed. Identified citations (both published and grey literature) were assessed against the following set of pre-defined eligibility criteria. Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were reviews, they examined the construct validity or responsiveness of at least one GPBMs, their main focus was on adult population (defined as years old) and ≥18 they summarized results reporting information at the study level (either in the text, tables or appendix of the reviews). Reviews were excluded if they reported results only in aggregate form, if they only examined reliability or face validity (i.e. not construct validity or responsiveness), if they tested translations of the GPBMs, if they were not in English or if they were only poster presentations. Quality Assessment of the reviews Quality has been assessed using a modified eight question version of the AMSTAR checklist for systematic reviews (Shea et al, 2007) with items weighted for their importance for GPBM research (See Appendixes Chapter 3 - Table II). Weighting was agreed after discussion between the PhD student and the supervisors John Brazier and Clara Mukuria. Questions on the of the literature “comprehensiveness the of a quality assessment and the of quality scores to search”, “presence tool” “use were assigned two points as they were considered essential formulate conclusions” for the correct identification and assessment of quality of studies included in reviews. of the included was assigned 1.5 points, as these “Characteristics studies” might significantly impact on the results. The of duplicate data selection “presence and and rarely used in systematic reviews of extraction” “double blinding” (although psychometric evidence) were assigned a score of one since they strengthen the reliability of the selection process. Questions on providing an design, which a priori minimizes the chance of results being changed once searches have being completed,
A highly sensitive searching filter for reviews and meta-analysis developed by the information services team of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was used to refine the search (CADTH, 2014), which was not limited by date or language restrictions. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scharr HUD electronic databases were investigated. In addition, references of the included reviews were screened and a complementary search on Google Scholar was performed. Identified citations (both published and grey literature) were assessed against the following set of pre-defined eligibility criteria. Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were reviews, they examined the construct validity or responsiveness of at least one GPBMs, their main focus was on adult population (defined as ≥18 years old) and they summarized results reporting information at the study level (either in the text, tables or appendix of the reviews). Reviews were excluded if they reported results only in aggregate form, if they only examined reliability or face validity (i.e. not construct validity or responsiveness), if they tested translations of the GPBMs, if they were not in English or if they were only poster presentations. Quality Assessment of the reviews Quality has been assessed using a modified eight question version of the AMSTAR checklist for systematic reviews (Shea et al, 2007) with items weighted for their importance for GPBM research (See Appendixes Chapter 3 - Table II). Weighting was agreed after discussion between the PhD student and the supervisors John Brazier and Clara Mukuria. Questions on the “comprehensiveness of the literature search”, the “presence of a quality assessment tool” and the “use of quality scores to formulate conclusions” were assigned two points as they were considered essential for the correct identification and assessment of quality of studies included in reviews. “Characteristics of the included studies” was assigned 1.5 points, as these might significantly impact on the results. The “presence of duplicate data selection and extraction” and “double blinding” (although rarely used in systematic reviews of psychometric evidence) were assigned a score of one since they strengthen the reliability of the selection process. Questions on providing an a priori design, which minimizes the chance of results being changed once searches have being completed,
PhD%20thesis%20FINAL_after%20VIVA_SUBMITED.docx