Cancer Symptom Assessment Instruments: A Systematic Review
| العنوان: | Cancer Symptom Assessment Instruments: A Systematic Review |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Ruth Lagman, Susan B. LeGrand, Eoin Tiernan, Norma O'Leary, Declan Walsh, K. Mitchell Russell, Jordanka Kirkova, Mellar P. Davis |
| المصدر: | Journal of Clinical Oncology. 24:1459-1473 |
| بيانات النشر: | American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), 2006. |
| سنة النشر: | 2006 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Cancer Research, medicine.medical_specialty, Pathology, Psychometrics, business.industry, Health Status, Alternative medicine, MEDLINE, Cancer, Symptom assessment, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, medicine.disease, Treatment Outcome, Quality of life (healthcare), Oncology, Neoplasms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Family medicine, Quality of Life, Humans, Medicine, business |
| الوصف: | Purpose A variety of assessment instruments have been created to identify cancer symptoms. We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English. Methods A systematic search of the MEDLINE database, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and EMBASE was performed. Non–peer-reviewed articles were identified through BIOSIS. Articles were accessed through the related article links in PubMed and references were searched by hand. Studies were included if the instrument had symptom assessment as the primary outcome. Quality-of-life instruments were excluded. Results We identified 21 instruments; some had undergone modification or validation. An additional 28 studies examined symptom prevalence and interrelations; many involved symptom checklists. Studies varied in design, patient characteristics, symptoms, and outcome. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity in design, study outcomes, and validation. Seventy-six articles and two conference abstracts (derived from MEDLINE, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, BIOSIS, related articles link in PubMed, and search by hand) met inclusion/exclusion criteria. The electronic search (without related links) yielded only 26% of those articles and conference abstracts that met inclusion criteria. Searches by hand of related articles identified 59% of studies. Conclusion Twenty-one instruments were identified as appropriate for clinical use. The instruments vary in symptom content and extent of psychometric validation. Both comprehensive and shorter instruments have been developed, and some instruments are intended for specific symptom assessment or symptoms related to treatment. There is no ideal instrument, and the wide variety of instruments reflects the different settings for symptom assessment. Additional research is necessary. |
| تدمد: | 1527-7755 0732-183X |
| DOI: | 10.1200/jco.2005.02.8332 |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::7bdc7346e30ccfe8a2bb56799b188cd0 https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.02.8332 |
| رقم الانضمام: | edsair.doi.dedup.....7bdc7346e30ccfe8a2bb56799b188cd0 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
| تدمد: | 15277755 0732183X |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1200/jco.2005.02.8332 |