Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

References

• Gynaecologists RCoO . Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month: Know your body [Blog]. (2016). www.rcog.org.uk/en/blog/gynaecological-cancer-awareness-month-know-your-body/ ( updated 02/09/2016).
   Google Scholar
• UK CR . Women’s cancers (gynaecological cancer) (2017). www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/womens-cancer
   Google Scholar
• Funston G , O’FlynnH, RyanNAJet al. Recognizing gynecological cancer in primary care: risk factors, red flags, and referrals. Adv. Ther.35(4), 577–89 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gajjar K , OgdenG, MujahidMI, RazviK. Symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer: a survey in primary care. ISRN Obstet. Gynecol.2012, 754197 (2012).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pakish JB , LuKH, SunCCet al. Endometrial cancer associated symptoms: a case–control study. J. Womens Health (Larchmont).25(11), 1187–1192 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenecker B , TikariaR. Vaginal cancer. StatPearls.Treasure Island (FL, USA) (2021).
   Google Scholar
• Bray F , FerlayJ, SoerjomataramIet al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin.68(6), 394–424 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankaranarayanan R , FerlayJ. Worldwide burden of gynaecological cancer: the size of the problem. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol.20(2), 207–225 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lei J , PlonerA, ElfstromKMet al. HPV vaccination and the risk of invasive cervical cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.383(14), 1340–1348 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rerucha CM , CaroRJ, WheelerVL. Cervical cancer screening. Am. Fam. Physician.97(7), 441–448 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkes N . Cancer survival data emphasise importance of early diagnosis. BMJ.364, l408 (2019).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sankaranarayanan R , SwaminathanR, JayantK, BrennerH. An overview of cancer survival in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Central America: the case for investment in cancer health services. IARC Sci. Publ. (162), 257–291 (2011).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sibeoni J , PicardC, OrriMet al. Patients’ quality of life during active cancer treatment: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer.18(1), 951 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ebrahim S . Clinical and public health perspectives and applications of health-related quality of life measurement. Soc. Sci. Med.41(10), 1383–1394 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss MCL , AggarwalA, QureshiAet al. An assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) in cancers of the pelvic abdominal cavity: identifying oncologic benefit and an evidence-practice gap in routine clinical practice. Health Qual. Life Outcomes.19(1), 20 (2021).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotronoulas G , KearneyN, MaguireRet al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J. Clin. Oncol.32(14), 1480–1501 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruland CM , HolteHH, RoislienJet al. Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients’ need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial. J Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.17(4), 403–410 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason SJ , CattoJWF, DowningA, BottomleySE, GlaserAW, WrightP. Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for bladder cancer: a systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. BJU Int.122(5), 760–773 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB , de VetHCW, PrinsenCACet al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Qual. Life Res.27(5), 1171–1179 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB , MokkinkLB, KnolDLet al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual. Life Res.21(4), 651–657 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratti MM , GandagliaG, AllevaEet al. Standardising the Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Localised Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review. Eur. Urol. Oncol.5(2), 153–163 (2022).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull AE , RabieeA, DavisWEet al. Outcome measurement in ICU survivorship research from 1970 to 2013: a scoping review of 425 publications. Crit. Care Med.44(7), 1267–1277 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham DM , SepulvedaKA, DinglasVDet al. Core outcome measures for clinical research in acute respiratory failure survivors. An international modified Delphi consensus study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.196(9), 1122–1130 (2017).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokkink LB , TerweeCB, PatrickDLet al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J. Clin. Epidemiol.63(7), 737–745 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB , BotSD, de BoerMRet al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J. Clin. Epidemiol.60(1), 34–42 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayana BA , NegashS, YusufLet al. Reliability and validity of amharic version of EORTC QLQ-C 30 questionnaire among gynecological cancer patients in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE11(6), e0157359 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradowski J , TomaszewskiKA, BerezaKet al. Validation of the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-OV28 module for the assessment of health-related quality of life in women with ovarian cancer. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res.14(1), 157–163 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akdemir Y , CamC, AyNP, KaratekeA. Validation of the Turkish version of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-OV28 ovarian cancer specific quality of life questionnaire. Turk. J. Obstet. Gynecol.17(1), 52–57 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallardo-Rincon D , Toledo-LeyvaA, Bahena-GonzalezAet al. Validation of the Mexican-Spanish Version of the EORTC QLQ-OV28 Instrument for the Assessment of Quality of Life in Women with Ovarian Cancer. Arch. Med. Res.51(7), 690–699 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chie WEA . Quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer in Taiwan: validation and application of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-OV28. (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Cull A , HowatS, GreimelEet al. Development of a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaire module to assess the quality of life of ovarian cancer patients in clinical trials: a progress report. Eur. J. Cancer37(1), 47–53 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greimel E , BottomleyA, CullAet al. An international field study of the reliability and validity of a disease-specific questionnaire module (the QLQ-OV28) in assessing the quality of life of patients with ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Cancer39(10), 1402–1408 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Araya LT , GebretekleGB, GebremariamGT, FentaTG. Reliability and validity of the Amharic version of European Organization for Research and Treatment of cervical Cancer module for the assessment of health related quality of life in women with cervical cancer in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Health Qual. Life Outcomes17(1), 13 (2019).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Du Toit GC , KiddM. An analysis of the psychometric properties of the translated versions of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ CX24 questionnaire in the two South African indigenous languages of Xhosa and Afrikaans. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl.)25(5), 832–838 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hua CH , GuoHM, GuanXLet al. Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer cervical cancer module for Chinese patients with cervical cancer. Patient Prefer. Adherence7, 1061–1066 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paradowska D , TomaszewskiKA, Balajewicz-NowakMet al. Validation of the Polish version of the EORTC QLQ-CX24 module for the assessment of health-related quality of life in women with cervical cancer. Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl)23(2), 214–220 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singer S , KuhntS, MomenghalibafAet al. Patients’ acceptance and psychometric properties of the EORTC QLQ-CX24 after surgery. Gynecol. Oncol.116(1), 82–87 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jayasekara H , RajapaksaLC, GreimelER. The EORTC QLQ-CX24 cervical cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire: psychometric properties in a South Asian sample of cervical cancer patients. Psychooncology17(10), 1053–1057 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin DW , AhnE, KimYMet al. Cross-cultural application of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire cervical cancer module. Oncology76(3), 190–198 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greimel ER , KuljanicVlasic K, WaldenstromACet al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life questionnaire cervical cancer module: EORTC QLQ-CX24. Cancer.107(8), 1812–1822 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stukan M , ZalewskiK, MardasMet al. Independent psychometric validation of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Endometrial Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-EN24). Eur. J. Cancer Care (Engl)27(1), (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greimel E , NordinA, LanceleyAet al. Psychometric validation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Endometrial Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-EN24). Eur. J. Cancer.47(2), 183–190 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashing-Giwa KT , KimJ, TejeroJS. Measuring quality of life among cervical cancer survivors: preliminary assessment of instrumentation validity in a cross-cultural study. Qual. Life Res.17(1), 147–157 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basen-Engquist K , Bodurka-BeversD, FitzgeraldMAet al. Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian. J. Clin. Oncol.19(6), 1809–1817 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fregnani CM , FregnaniJH, DiasDe Oliveira Latorre Mdo R, DeAlmeida AM. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix questionnaire in Brazil. PLOS ONE8(10), e77947 (2013).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding Y , HuY, HallbergIR. Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACT-Cx) measuring health-related quality of life. Health Qual. Life Outcomes10, 124 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peerawong T , SuphasynthY, KongkamolCet al. Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy with Cervical Cancer Subscale (FACT-CX) for Quality of Life in Thai Patients Prior to Chemoradiotherapy. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.21(7), 1891–1897 (2020).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang HQ , BradyMF, CellaD, FlemingG. Validation and reduction of FACT/GOG-Ntx subscale for platinum/paclitaxel-induced neurologic symptoms: a gynecologic oncology group study. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer17(2), 387–393 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee M , LeeY, KimKet al. Development and validation of ovarian symptom index-18 and neurotoxicity-4 for Korean patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Cancer Res. Treat.51(1), 112–118 (2019).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calhoun EA , WelshmanEE, ChangCHet al. Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (Fact/GOG-Ntx) questionnaire for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer.13(6), 741–748 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT , StocklerMR, O’connellRLet al. Measuring what matters MOST: validation of the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment, a patient-reported outcome measure of symptom burden and impact of chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. Qual. Life Res.27(1), 59–74 (2018).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT , StocklerMR, ButowPet al. Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer24(5), 865–873 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baser RE , LiY, CarterJ. Psychometric validation of the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) in cancer survivors. Cancer118(18), 4606–4618 (2012).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu H , YuJ, ChenYet al. Sexual function in cervical cancer patients: psychometric properties and performance of a Chinese version of the Female Sexual Function Index. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs.20, 24–30 (2016).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang HC , ChuangL, ShunSC, HsiehCL, LanCF. Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Support Care Cancer18(10), 1279–1286 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endarti D , RiewpaiboonA, ThavorncharoensapM, PraditsitthikornN, HutubessyR, KristinaSA. A comparison of EQ-5D-3L index scores using Malaysian, Singaporean, Thai, and UK value sets in Indonesian cervical cancer patients. Value Health Reg. Issues15, 50–55 (2018).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rezai M , KolneK, BuiS, LindsayS. Measures of workplace inclusion: a systematic review using the COSMIN methodology. J. Occup. Rehabil.30(3), 420–454 (2020).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cella DF , TulskyDS, GrayGet al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J. Clin. Oncol.11(3), 570–579 (1993).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zigmond AS , SnaithRP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand.67(6), 361–370 (1983).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piedmont RL . Factorial validity. In: Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research.Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2014).
   Google Scholar
• Davidson M , KeatingJ. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), how should I interpret reports of measurement properties? A practical guide for clinicians and researchers who are not biostatisticians. Br. J. Sports Med.48(9), 792–796 (2014).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp TR . Coefficient alpha: conceptualizations and anomalies. Res. Nurs. Health.14(6), 457–460 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar . Test–retest reliability: National Institutes of Health. www.semanticscholar.org/topic/Test-Retest-Reliability/697331
   Google Scholar
• Kirshner B , GuyattG. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J. Chronic Dis.38(1), 27–36 (1985).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar