From: Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses – Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes
Measure | Strengths | Weaknesses |
---|---|---|
Types of Scores Produced | ||
Single indicator number | Global evaluation | May be difficult to interpret |
Useful for population | ||
Single index number | Represents net impact | Sometimes not possible to disaggregate contribution of domains to the overall score |
Useful for cost effectiveness | ||
Profile of interrelated scores | Single instrument | Length may be a problem |
Contribution of domains to overall score possible | May not have overall score | |
Battery of independent scores | Wide range of relevant outcomes possible | Cannot relate different outcomes to common measurement scale |
May need to adjust for multiple comparisons | ||
May need to identify the major outcome | ||
Range of Populations and Concepts | ||
Generic: applied across diseases, conditions, populations, and concepts | Broadly applicable | May not be responsive to change |
Summarizes range of concepts | May not have focus of patient interest | |
Detection of unanticipated effects possible | Length may be a problem | |
Effects may be difficult to interpret | ||
Specific: applied to individuals, diseases, conditions, populations, or concepts/domains | More acceptable to respondents | Cannot compare across conditions or populations |
May be more responsive to change | Cannot detect unanticipated effects | |
Weighting System | ||
Utility: preference weights from patients, providers, or community | Interval scale | May have difficulty obtaining weights |
Patient or consumer view incorporated | May not differ from statistical weights that are easier to obtain | |
Equal-weighting: items weighted equally or from frequency or responses | Self-weighting samples | May be influenced by prevalence |
More familiar techniques | Cannot incorporate tradeoffs | |
Appears easier to use |