Purpose: We aimed to identify the condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure quality of life (QoL) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, examine their development and content, and critically appraise the quality of their measurement properties, to inform recommendations for clinical and research use. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 27th January 2023. Search hits were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers; papers reporting the development and/or validation of condition- and transplant-specific PROMs measuring QoL in adult SOT recipients were considered eligible. We abstracted and synthesised data on PROM characteristics, development (item generation and/or reduction), and content (QoL dimensions). Quality appraisal and synthesis were informed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and included methodological and quality assessment of measurement properties, GRADE levels of evidence, feasibility and interpretability. Results: We identified 33 papers reporting 26 QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients (kidney n = 10 PROMs; liver n = 6; lung n = 3; heart n = 2; pancreas n = 1; multiple organs n = 4). Patient discussions (n = 17 PROMs) and factor analysis (n = 11) were the most common item generation and reduction techniques used, respectively. All PROMs measured ≥3 of nine QoL dimensions (all measured emotional functioning); KDQoL-SF and NIDDK-QA measured all nine. Methodological quality was variable; no PROM had low evidence or better for all measurement properties. All PROMs were COSMIN recommendation category 'B', primarily because none had sufficient content validity. Conclusions: There are many condition- and transplant-specific QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients, particularly kidney. These findings can help inform PROM selection for clinicians and researchers. However, caution is required when adopting measures, due to the substantial heterogeneity in development, content, and quality. Each PROM has potential but requires further research to be recommendable. Greater consideration of patient and professional involvement in PROM development in this setting is needed to ensure sufficient content validity.

Objective To evaluate and compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among Chinese overweight and obesity populations.Methods A representative sample of Chinese overweight and obesity populations was recruited stratified by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and area of residence. Social-demographic characteristics and self-reported EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 responses were collected through the online survey. The agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Convergent validity and known-group validity were examined using Spearman's rank correlation and effect sizes, respectively. The test-retest reliability was assessed using among a subgroup of the total sample. Sensitivity was compared using relative efficiency and receiver operating characteristic.Results A total of 1000 respondents (52.0% male, mean age 51.7 years, 67.7% overweight, 32.3% obesity) were included in this study. A higher ceiling effect was observed in EQ-5D-5L than in SF-6Dv2 (30.6% vs. 2.1%). The mean (SD) utility was 0.851 (0.195) for EQ-5D-5L and 0.734 (0.164) for SF-6Dv2, with the ICC of the total sample was 0.639 (p < 0.001). The Spearman's rank correlation (range: 0.186-0.739) indicated an acceptable convergent validity between the dimensions of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2. The EQ-5D-5L showed basically equivalent discriminative capacities with the SF-6Dv2 (ES: 0.517-1.885 vs. 0.383-2.329). The ICC between the two tests were 0.939 for EQ-5D-5L and 0.972 for SF-6Dv2 among the subgroup (N = 150). The SF-6Dv2 had 3.7-170.1% higher efficiency than the EQ-5D-5L at detecting differences in self-reported health status, while the EQ-5D-5L was found to be 16.4% more efficient at distinguishing between respondents with diabetes and non-diabetes.Conclusions Both the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 showed comparable reliability, validity, and sensitivity when used in Chinese overweight and obesity populations. The two measures may not be interchangeable given the systematic difference in utility values between the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2. More research is needed to compare the responsiveness.