26 Chapter 2 asked for every identified outcome measurement instrument. The respondents to the survey had four response options for the specific outcome measurement instrument to be: 1) NOT truthful and NOT feasible, 2) truthful but NOT feasible, 3) NOT truthful but feasible or 4) truthful AND feasible. An outcome measurement instrument was assessed in step 3 if it met the a priori decision criteria: ≥70% agree the outcome measurement instrument is both truthful and feasible. Conversely, outcome measurement instruments that received agreement from less than 70% of the respondents were not assessed in step 3. Step 3 – Performing a quality assessment of the endorsed outcome measurement instruments For this step, we only used outcome measurement instruments that were found to have content and concept match (were found to be truthful) and were feasible to use. This step consisted of a systematic review to assess the measurement properties of the selected outcome measurement instruments. To ensure a standardized approach, we adhered to the OMERACT guideline for instrument selection in core outcome measurement sets.9,11 This guideline uses the pillars Truth (do the numeric scores make sense?) and Discrimination (can it discriminate between groups of interest?). A search strategy (online Supplementary file 1) was performed by a medical librarian, using a focused search that was based on the 1) specific patient population of Achilles tendinopathy; 2) outcome measurement instrument names and 3) measurement properties (construct validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness, sensitivity to change, minimum important difference and patient acceptable state). The following databases were searched for published and unpublished trials up to 17 March 2022: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus. After duplicate removal, two researchers (RJDV, TSV) independently screened the studies based on title and abstract. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Studies were deemed eligible if they investigated the measurement properties of the outcome measurement instruments in a population of patients with Achilles tendinopathy. The same two reviewers independently applied the eligibility criteria to the full texts, with any disagreements settled through consensus or, if necessary, with the involvement of a third reviewer (KGS). The selected studies were then grouped based on the outcome measurement instrument examined. After this stage, the methods of the selected studies were critically appraised using the OMERACT and COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) guidelines.12 Two researchers (IvdAS, SES) with methodological expertise from the collaborating group independently assessed the methodological quality of the selected studies. Selected studies were assessed on the performance of the outcome
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw