28 Chapter 2 and WA) evaluated the assessment accuracy. Quality rating (good, fair or poor) was used to assess certainty of evidence. Any discrepancies were discussed with all reviewers (ESvH, MEH and WA) until consensus was reached. Studies were not excluded based on risk of bias assessment. Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram for study identification. Abbreviation: PROs, patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS Data retrieval The systematic literature search yielded a total of 1959 non-duplicate references that were screened using predetermined inclusion- and exclusion criteria. The flow chart (Figure 1) shows the process of article selection from initial search to final inclusion or exclusion. A total of 21 articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. All studies were published between 2000 and 2020 (Figure 2). Seven studies were conducted in the Netherlands 22-28, five in the United Kingdom 29-33, four in the United States 34-37, three in Canada 38-40, one in Sweden 41 and one in Iran 42. Figure 3 shows the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Three studies were assessed as having poor quality and therefore a high risk of bias. The remaining articles had a fair quality rating. The most prevalent limitations
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw