Patient-reported outcome measures for acute rhinosinusitis in adults and children: a systematic review of the quality of existing instruments

Table 6 Quality of studies on measurement properties and methodological rating of the instruments

PROM	Reference	Methodological quality (rating^1,2)
		Structural validity	Internal consistency	Test-Retest-Reliability	Construct validity (Comparator instrument)	Construct validity (Known-groups)	Responsiveness
SNOT-16	Garbutt et al. 2011	-	Very good (?)	Doubtful (+)	-	Very good (±)	Very good (+)
SNOT-16	Quadri et al. 2013	-	Doubtful (?)	-	Adequate (+)	-	Very good (+)
MARS	Hornáčková et al. 2014	-	Doubtful (?)	-	-	Doubtful (+)	Very good (+)
RhinoQoL	Atlas et al. 2005*	-	Doubtful (?)	-	Adequate (±)	Doubtful (±)	-
	Petrat 2020	-	Doubtful (?)	-	Adequate (+)	-	Comparator instrument: Adequate (-)
	Petrat 2020	-	Doubtful (?)	-	Adequate (+)	-	Known-groups: Doubtful (+)
PRSS	Shaikh et al. 2019	Adequate (?)	Doubtful (?)	Adequate (+)	-	-	Doubtful (+)
S5	Garbutt et al. 1999	-	-	Doubtful (+)	-	-	Inadequate (±)

PROM Patient-reported outcome measure; MARS Measurement of Acute Rhinosinusitis, PRSS Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Score, RhinoQoL Rhinosinusitis Quality-of-Life Questionnaire, SNOT-16 Sinonasal Outcome Test-16, S5 Sinusitis Symptom Questionnaire
¹No study has analyzed cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, measurement error and criterion validity
²Rating: (+) sufficient, (-) insufficient, (?) indeterminate, (±) inconsistent
* The development study of the RhinoQoL was additionally searched and included for comprehensive assessment

ISSN: 1477-7525