Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales for stroke and provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical and research use.</p> Methods <p>Ten databases (e.g., CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Embase) were searched from inception to September 2024. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of Chinese HRQOL scales for stroke patients were included. Two researchers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed measurement properties and methodological quality using COSMIN standards.</p> Results <p>Thirty-seven studies were included, reporting on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and measurement error. Two tools demonstrated sufficient content validity and at least low-quality evidence of sufficient internal consistency (Category A), while 17 were classified as Category B.</p> Conclusions <p>Although diverse, the overall quality of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales is suboptimal, and further studies are needed. MHIEC-ST and SAQOL-39&#xa0;g are recommended, with further measurement properties studies needed to refine and enhance these tools.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Measurement properties of Chinese-version assessment tools of health-related quality of life in patients with stroke: a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月25日

查看全文
  • Linfei Ding,
  • Yunxun Chen,
  • Yan Zhang,
  • Xin Fu,
  • Qin Liu,
  • Xiaoyu Li

摘要

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the measurement properties of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales for stroke and provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical and research use.

Methods

Ten databases (e.g., CNKI, VIP, PubMed, Embase) were searched from inception to September 2024. Studies evaluating the measurement properties of Chinese HRQOL scales for stroke patients were included. Two researchers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed measurement properties and methodological quality using COSMIN standards.

Results

Thirty-seven studies were included, reporting on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and measurement error. Two tools demonstrated sufficient content validity and at least low-quality evidence of sufficient internal consistency (Category A), while 17 were classified as Category B.

Conclusions

Although diverse, the overall quality of Chinese versions of HRQOL scales is suboptimal, and further studies are needed. MHIEC-ST and SAQOL-39 g are recommended, with further measurement properties studies needed to refine and enhance these tools.