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.
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.
Authors: Xin Shelley Wang; Laurence D Rhines; Almon S Shiu; James N Yang; Ugur Selek; Ibrahima Gning; Ping Liu; Pamela K Allen; Syed S Azeem; Paul D Brown; Hadley J Sharp; David C Weksberg; Charles S Cleeland; Eric L Chang Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-01-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Eva Mazzotti; Gian Carlo Antonini Cappellini; Stefania Buconovo; Roberto Morese; Alessandro Scoppola; Claudia Sebastiani; Paolo Marchetti Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Xin Shelley Wang; Charles Lu; Guadalupe R Palos; Zhongxing Liao; Gary M Mobley; Shitij Kapoor; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-02-01
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: D Howell; S Keller-Olaman; T K Oliver; T F Hack; L Broadfield; K Biggs; J Chung; D Gravelle; E Green; M Hamel; T Harth; P Johnston; D McLeod; N Swinton; A Syme; K Olson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Loretta A Williams; Araceli G Garcia Gonzalez; Patricia Ault; Tito R Mendoza; Mary L Sailors; Janet L Williams; Furong Huang; Aziz Nazha; Hagop M Kantarjian; Charles S Cleeland; Jorge E Cortes Journal: Blood Date: 2013-06-18 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: L Lee Dupuis; Cindy Milne-Wren; Marilyn Cassidy; Maru Barrera; Carol Portwine; Donna L Johnston; Mariana Pradier Silva; Cathryn Sibbald; Michael Leaker; Stacey Routh; Lillian Sung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-06-10 Impact factor: 3.603