用于妇科肿瘤学的患者报告结局指标:一项系统评价

Patient-reported outcome measures for use in gynaecological oncology: a systematic review.

作者信息

Preston N J, Wilson N, Wood N J, Brine J, Ferreira J, Brearley S G

机构信息

Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

出版信息

BJOG. 2015 Apr;122(5):615-22. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13251. Epub 2015 Jan 5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess the impact of health care on a patient's health. Within the gynaecological oncology setting, multiple PROMs have been adopted but no assessment has been made in terms of their psychometric qualities and robustness.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake a systematic review to identify the most psychometrically robust and appropriate PROM used in the gynaecological oncology setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of the bibliographic database of the Oxford PROM group, plus nine additional databases, was carried out along with citation-tracking and hand searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies examining the psychometric properties of outcome measures tested in gynaecological cancer populations were selected by three blinded reviewers.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were independently assessed and data extracted. Analysis included an appraisal of the psychometric properties and functionality of the included PROMs to guide recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen PROMs tested in gynaecological oncology settings were identified. These were categorised into seven areas of focus, and the most psychometrically robust tools were identified: (1) generic (no recommendation); (2) general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G); (3) pelvic cancer (QUEST GY); (4) ovarian cancer (EORTC QLQ-OV28); (5) cervical cancer (EORTC QLQ-CX24); (6) endometrial cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN 24); and (7) vulval cancer (FACT-V).

AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Seven PROMs were recommended for use in six gynaecological populations. No single tool was identified that had been tested in all disease groups. Some showed promise, but a lack of conceptual clarity about the core outcomes and the rationale for use will require further testing using well-constructed studies.

摘要

背景

患者报告结局测量指标(PROMs)用于评估医疗保健对患者健康的影响。在妇科肿瘤领域,已采用了多种PROMs,但尚未对其心理测量学质量和稳健性进行评估。

目的

进行一项系统评价,以确定在妇科肿瘤领域使用的心理测量学最稳健且最合适的PROM。

检索策略

检索了牛津PROM小组的书目数据库以及另外九个数据库,并进行了引文跟踪和手工检索。

选择标准

由三位盲法评审员挑选出研究妇科癌症人群中所测试结局测量指标心理测量特性的研究。

数据收集与分析

对研究进行独立评估并提取数据。分析包括对纳入的PROMs的心理测量特性和功能进行评估,以指导提出建议。

主要结果

确定了在妇科肿瘤环境中测试的18种PROMs。这些被分为七个重点领域,并确定了心理测量学最稳健的工具:(1)通用型(无推荐);(2)一般癌症(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织核心问卷(EORTC QLQ-C30)和癌症治疗功能评价系统通用量表(FACT-G));(3)盆腔癌(妇科问题评价量表(QUEST GY));(4)卵巢癌(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织卵巢癌问卷(EORTC QLQ-OV28));(5)宫颈癌(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织宫颈癌问卷(EORTC QLQ-CX24));(6)子宫内膜癌(欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织子宫内膜癌问卷(EORTC QLQ-EN 24));以及(7)外阴癌(癌症治疗功能评价系统外阴癌量表(FACT-V))。

作者结论

推荐七种PROMs用于六种妇科人群。未发现有单一工具在所有疾病组中都进行过测试。一些工具显示出前景,但核心结局缺乏概念清晰度以及使用的基本原理需要通过精心构建的研究进行进一步测试。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索