Literature DB >> 16794901

Quality of life assessment in surgical oncology trials.

Kerry Avery1, Jane M Blazeby.   

Abstract

Integrating health-related quality of life (HRQOL) as an endpoint for randomized surgical trials provides valuable insight into the patients' perspective on treatment outcome. Health related quality of life data also play a role in ensuring fully informed consent, determining treatment options and informing treatment decision making. However, few randomized surgical trials have been conducted that meet the minimum requirements for rigorous HRQL assessment and, despite increasing efforts to improve the reporting of randomized trials, many are still not adequately performed. Such methodologic limitations may influence trial findings for HRQL outcomes and undermine the ability of the data collected to inform clinical practice. This review describes key methodological aspects of HRQL assessment that are required in randomized trials to ensure that data are robust. This includes choice of HRQL instrument, the method and timing of assessments and data analysis and presentation. The review also makes recommendations for future research in this area.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16794901     DOI: 10.1007/s00268-006-0075-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Surg        ISSN: 0364-2313            Impact factor:   3.352


  47 in total

1.  A comparative study of post-operative psychosocial function in women with primary operable breast cancer randomized to breast conservation therapy or mastectomy.

Authors:  B Poulsen; H P Graversen; J Beckmann; M Blichert-Toft
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.424

2.  Breast conservation versus mastectomy: distress sequelae as a function of choice.

Authors:  S M Levy; R B Herberman; J K Lee; M E Lippman; T d'Angelo
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 3.  Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines.

Authors:  F Guillemin; C Bombardier; D Beaton
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting.

Authors:  Gunnar Steineck; Fred Helgesen; Jan Adolfsson; Paul W Dickman; Jan-Erik Johansson; Bo Johan Norlén; Lars Holmberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-09-12       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Observer variation in assessment of quality of life in patients with oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  J M Blazeby; M H Williams; D Alderson; J R Farndon
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 6.  Methodological issues in assessing health-related quality of life of colorectal cancer patients in randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  F Efficace; A Bottomley; V Vanvoorden; J M Blazeby
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 7.  Health-related quality of life in non-small-cell lung cancer: methodologic issues in randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Andrew Bottomley; Fabio Efficace; Ronald Thomas; Veerle Vanvoorden; Sam H Ahmedzai
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-08-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  A randomised comparison of 'Casodex' (bicalutamide) 150 mg monotherapy versus castration in the treatment of metastatic and locally advanced prostate cancer.

Authors:  C J Tyrrell; A V Kaisary; P Iversen; J B Anderson; L Baert; T Tammela; M Chamberlain; A Webster; G Blackledge
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 20.096

Review 9.  Quality improvement report: Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. Commentary: presenting unbiased information to patients can be difficult.

Authors:  Jenny Donovan; Nicola Mills; Monica Smith; Lucy Brindle; Ann Jacoby; Tim Peters; Stephen Frankel; David Neal; Freddie Hamdy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-10-05

10.  Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer: clinical implications of results from randomised trials.

Authors:  Sameer Gujral; Kerry N L Avery; Jane M Blazeby
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2007-11-20       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Evidence-Based Surgery. Users' guide to the surgical literature: how to assess an article on health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Achilleas Thoma; Sylvie D Cornacchi; Peter J Lovrics; Charlie H Goldsmith
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.089

3.  Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials in gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Valerie Bridoux; Grégoire Moutel; Benoit Lefebure; Michel Scotte; Francis Michot; Christian Herve; Jean-Jacques Tuech
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: a systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers.

Authors:  Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Helen Duffy; Adrian Gheorghe; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Michael Brundage; Jane Blazeby; Madeleine King
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Quality of life after subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: Does restoration method matter? - A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Edgaras Smolskas; Raimundas Lunevicius; Narimantas Evaldas Samalavicius
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2015-09-03

6.  The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis.

Authors:  Samantha Cruz Rivera; Derek G Kyte; Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi; Anita L Slade; Christel McMullan; Melanie J Calvert
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.186

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.