Feb 11, 2025

Public workspaceA scoping review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer

DOI
dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.36wgqdp6kvk5/v1
  • Trafford Crump1,
  • Nisha Suarez1,
  • Mariam Hegazy1,
  • Samir Amin1,
  • Joshua Cheruvathur1,
  • Talia Trottenberg1
  • 1McGill University
  • Crump Lab
Trafford Crump
Icon indicating open access to content
QR code linking to this content
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.36wgqdp6kvk5/v1
Protocol Citation: Trafford Crump, Nisha Suarez, Mariam Hegazy, Samir Amin, Joshua Cheruvathur, Talia Trottenberg 2025. A scoping review of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer. protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.36wgqdp6kvk5/v1
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,  which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: February 11, 2025
Last Modified: February 11, 2025
Protocol Integer ID: 120042
Keywords: esophageal cancer, patient-reported outcome measures, psychometric quality, scoping review, COSMIN guidelines, Cochrane Rapid Review Methods, PRISMA-P 2015, validation studies, measurement properties, health status instruments
Abstract
This protocol details a scoping review aimed at evaluating the psychometric quality of patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer. The study will follow the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods and PRISMA-P 2015 checklist. The expected results of this scoping review are to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer, following the COSMIN guidelines. This will help guide recommendations for the esophageal cancer community.
Rationale:
Rationale:
Several studies have conducted reviews on the generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome measures that have been used in esophageal cancer1–3. What has not been reviewed, nor reported, is the psychometric quality of these patient-reported outcome measures. This information is needed to help guide decisions with respect to the patient-reported outcome measures that should be recommended to the esophageal cancer community.  
This scoping review will conform to the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods with the intention to publish the results of the study in a peer-reviewed journal4.This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist5.
Objective:
Objective:
This study aims to answer the following question:
To what extent do the most common patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer patients meet the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN)? 
Eligibility criteria:
Eligibility criteria:
To be included in this review studies must:
  • report on the validation (i.e., testing psychometric properties) of a patient-reported outcome measures;
  • focused specifically for patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer; and
  • have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Study will be excluded if:
  • they fall outside the scope of a patient-reported outcome measure (e.g., patient-reported experience measures);
  • pertain to general health (i.e., "generic" patient-reported outcomes), general cancer, or condition-specific not esophageal cancer (e.g., pain, depression); or
  • published in the “grey” literature or exclusively on a website.
Search Strategy:
Search Strategy:
Information Sources:
The following sources will be searched:
  • MedLine,
  • EMBASE,
  • the Cochrane Library, and
  • COMET.
A medical librarian will:
  1. identify the appropriate MeSH terms and keywords,
  2. develop a search strategy specific to each database, and
  3. suggest the relevant search restrictions.
Study Records:
Study Records:
Data management:
Covidence6 and Zotero7 will be used to manage the search results, review process, and references.
Selection process:
Two reviewers will independently go through the titles and abstracts of the initial search results. Potentially relevant results will be included for full text review. A third reviewer will be brought in to discuss results where the two reviewers differ on the relevance of a particular manuscript. Those results that have the support of both reviewers will go on for full text review.
Data collection process:
A data extraction tool will be developed for collecting data from the full text review. It will be used by two reviewers who will review each study independently. Results will be compared. A third reviewer will be brought in to review and decide on disputes in data extractions.
Data Extraction:
Data Extraction:
Data items:
The "COSMIN Reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient reported outcome measures” (version: August 2021) will be used to guide the data extraction process8.  
Outcomes and prioritization:
The primary outcomes of interest for this review include:
  • content validity
  • structural validity
  • internal consistency
  • cross-cultural validity \ measurement invariance
  • reliability
  • measurement error
  • criterion validity
  • construct validity
  • responsiveness

Risk of bias in individual studies:
The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist will be used to assess the quality of each study included in this scoping review9. This checklist is comprised of 10 sections, each with their respective set of standards that the reviewer rates using a scale that ranges from “very good” to “inadequate”. The overall quality for each section is taken to be the lowest rating for any standard within that section.  
Analysis:
Analysis:
Data synthesis:
There are no plans to quantitatively synthesize the study data aside from some basic descriptive statistics that will be used to characterize themes from the aggregate results. These will be used to describe the extent to which the studies cover the COSMIN guidelines. They will also be used to describe the populations used to validate the patient-reported outcome measures included in this review.  
Meta-bias(es):
There are no plans to assess potential meta-biases.
Confidence in cumulative evidence:
The aggregated results of the COSMIN Reporting guidelines checklist will provide the basis for assessing the confidence in cumulative evidence.
Protocol references
1. Straatman J, Joosten P, Terwee C, Cuesta M, Jansma E, van der Peet D. Systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures in the surgical treatment of patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29(7):760-772.

2. Reed C, Dellon E. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Esophageal Diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16:305-310.

3. Dorsey YC, Song EJ, Leiman DA. Beyond the Eckardt Score: Patient-reported outcomes measures in esophageal disorders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2021;23(12):29. doi:10.1007/s11894-021-00831-4

4. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13-22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007

5. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1-9.

6. Covidence systematic review software. Accessed January 17, 2024. www.covidence.org

7. Zotero. Accessed January 17, 2024. www.zotero.org

8. Gagnier JJ, Lai J, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB. COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(8):2197-2218. doi:10.1007/s11136-021-02822-4

9. Mokkink LB, De Vet HC, Prinsen CA, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171-1179.