Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

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

Published:2023-03 Issue:9 Volume:19 Page:663-678
ISSN:1479-6694
Container-title:Future Oncology
language:en
Short-container-title:Future Oncology

Author:

Moss Charlotte L¹^ORCID,Guerrero-Urbano Teresa²,White Ingrid²,Taylor Benjamin²^ORCID,Kristeleit Rebecca²,Montes Ana²,Fox Louis¹,Beyer Katharina¹,Sztankay Monika³,Ratti Maria M⁴,Sisca Elena S⁴,Derevianko Alexandra⁴^ORCID,MacLennan Steven⁵,Wood Nicholas⁶,Wintner Lisa M³,Van Hemelrijck Mieke¹

Affiliation:

1. Translational & Oncology Research (TOUR), King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, London, UK

2. Guy's Cancer Centre, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 9RT, UK

3. Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

4. Clinical & Health Psychology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Olgettina Street, 60 - 20132, Milan, Italy

5. Academic Urology Unit, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3FX, Aberdeen, UK

6. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, PR2 9HT, Lancashire, UK

Abstract

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Publisher

Future Medicine Ltd

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology,General Medicine

Link

https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/fon-2022-0111

Reference64 articles.

1. 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).

2. UK CR. Women's cancers (gynaecological cancer) (2017). www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/womens-cancer

3. Recognizing Gynecological Cancer in Primary Care: Risk Factors, Red Flags, and Referrals

4. Symptoms and Risk Factors of Ovarian Cancer: A Survey in Primary Care

5. Endometrial Cancer Associated Symptoms: A Case-Control Study