Search

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-rated scales and indices developed to improve the detection of the patients’ subjective experience. Given that a considerable number of PROMs are available, it is important to evaluate their validity and usefulness in a specific research or clinical setting. Published guidelines, based on psychometric criteria, do not fit in with the complexity of clinical challenges, because of their quest for homogeneity of components and inadequate attention to sensitivity. Psychometric theory has stifled the field and led to the routine use of scales widely accepted yet with a history of poor performance. Clinimetrics, the science of clinical measurements, may provide a more suitable conceptual and methodological framework. The aims of this paper are to outline the major limitations of the psychometric model and to provide criteria for clinimetric patient-reported outcome measures (CLIPROMs). The characteristics related to reliability, sensitivity, validity, and clinical utility of instruments are critically reviewed, with particular reference to the differences between clinimetric and psychometric approaches. Of note is the fact that PROMs, rating scales, and indices developed according to psychometric criteria may display relevant clinimetric properties. The present paper underpins the importance of the clini­metric methodology in choosing the appropriate PROMs. CLIPROM criteria may also guide the development of new indices and the validation of existing PROMs to be employed in clinical settings.

The format of the original Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) was unstructured: only general instructions were provided for rating individual items. Over the years, a number of modified versions of the HAM-D have been proposed. They differ not only in the number of items, but also in modalities of administration. Structured versions, including item definitions, anchor points and semi-structured or structured interview questions, were developed. This comprehensive review was conducted to examine the clinimetric properties of the different versions of the HAM-D. The aim was to identify the HAM-D versions that best display the clinimetric properties of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, and yielded a total of 35,473 citations, but only the most representative studies were included. The structured versions of the HAM-D were found to display the highest inter-rater and test-retest reliability. The Clinical Interview for Depression and the 6-item HAM-D showed the highest sensitivity in differentiating active treatment from placebo. The findings indicate that the HAM-D is a valid and sensitive clinimetric index, which should not be discarded in view of obsolete and not clinically relevant psychometric criteria. The HAM-D, however, requires an informed use: unstructured forms should be avoided and the type of HAM-D version that is selected should be specified in the registration of the study protocol and in the methods of the trial.