Measurement properties of health-related quality of life measures for people living with metastatic disease of the spine: a systematic review

Author:

Qiao Liang1,Ding Xing1,He Shaohui2,Zhang Fan1,Yu Wenlong1,Zhang Luosheng2,Chen Dingbang2,Gao Xin2,Chu Peilin3,Yan Yinjie1,Huang Quan2,Yang Xinghai2,Yin Mengchen12

Affiliation:

1. Longhua Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine

2. Changzheng Hospital, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University

3. Department of Orthopaedics, Maanshan General Hospital of Ranger-Duree Healthcare, People’s Republic of China

Abstract

Purpose: Patients with spinal metastases (SM) suffer from a significant quality of life (QoL) deterioration. The measurement of QoL has garnered significant attention. In this study, the authors aimed to investigate the frequency of QoL measurement, systematically appraise the measurement properties of identified instruments, and facilitate the effective selection of an appropriate QoL instrument for patients with SM. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the newly revised Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Measurement property results were assessed using the adapted criteria. Each measurement property was allocated a separate rating (excellent, good, fair, or poor). ʻBest evidence synthesisʼ was performed using COSMIN outcomes and the quality of findings. Result: Two hundred and nine publications were included, and 18 instruments were identified. ECOG, EuroQol-5D, SF-36, SOSGOQ, and EORTC-QLQ-C30 were the top five instruments used for patients with SM in published literature. The measurement properties evaluated included internal consistency (four instruments), reliability (three instruments), validity (five instruments), validity (nine measures), floor and ceiling effects (four instruments), responsiveness (four instruments), and interpretability (three measures). Based on the limited evidence, the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) had the best methodological quality. Conclusions: Owing to the limitations of BPI in assessment domains, we cannot fully support the use of BPI. For the lack of high-quality research, it is challenging to nominate a single appropriate measure. Additional studies are needed to explore the evidence before a confirmatory decision is made.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

General Medicine,Surgery

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3