ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research

By B. Reeve, K. Wyrwich, A. Wu, G. Velikova, C. Terwee, C. Snyder, Carolyn Schwartz, Dennis A. Revicki, C. Moinpour, Lori D. McLeod and 13 more. Quality of Life Research, 2013

764 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Health Professions, Oncology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/38b93daf96d80c68b2dccfd6a7a3fdc2007cbc20

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. L. Mokkink
2. Lex M. Bouter
3. HC de Vet
4. C. Terwee
5. Jordi Alonso
6. C. Prinsen
7. D.walaa badawy
8. A. Chiarotto

In General Health Professions

1. HC de Vet

Citations in the corpus

• Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures (2014, neutral): “Moreover, the International Society for Quality of Life research (ISOQOL) recently defined minimum standards required for the design and selection of a PRO measure but did not mention sample size determination [12].”
• Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine (2017, neutral): “Table 2: Questionnaire‐related terminology[16,44,45]”
• COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study (2018, methodology): “Proposed standards and criteria were based on three literature searches: (1) a search used for developing the ISOQOL minimum standards for PROMs [25]; (2) a search on methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for COS [14]; and (3) a PubMed search “content validity”[ti].”