Dilara Seyidova-Khoshknabi1, Mellar P Davis, Declan Walsh. 1. The Harry R. Horvitz Center for Palliative Medicine, Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Section of Palliative Medicine and Supportive Oncology, OH, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom experienced by patients in all stages and in cancer survivors. The main objectives of this review were to identify validated CRF instruments, and populations in whom these tools have been validated. METHODS: We used a systematic review methodology. Three separate searches were performed using different MeSH terms in Pub Med and Ovid databases. Articles were analyzed for validation and reliability. RESULTS: A total of 1453 papers from 3 different searches identified 40 instruments (3 unidimensional and 37 multidimensional). Instruments varied by psychometric properties, items, scale, dimension, cancer site, and population. Five were optimally tested for validity and reliability. Completion rates, sensitivity to change, and test-retest reliability were reported for a few. DISCUSSION: Most tools had been validated in mixed populations and are relatively insensitive to differences in fatigue to cancer stage. Most instruments are burdensome for those with advanced cancer. The Brief Fatigue Inventory and 3 fatigue items of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire Fatigue Scale (EORTC QLQ-C30) are optimal instruments in advanced cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In all, 40 CRF instruments were identified. Validity and reliability varied by questionnaire. The ideal item numbers, scale, and domains are not established and may be population dependent.
PURPOSE:Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common symptom experienced by patients in all stages and in cancer survivors. The main objectives of this review were to identify validated CRF instruments, and populations in whom these tools have been validated. METHODS: We used a systematic review methodology. Three separate searches were performed using different MeSH terms in Pub Med and Ovid databases. Articles were analyzed for validation and reliability. RESULTS: A total of 1453 papers from 3 different searches identified 40 instruments (3 unidimensional and 37 multidimensional). Instruments varied by psychometric properties, items, scale, dimension, cancer site, and population. Five were optimally tested for validity and reliability. Completion rates, sensitivity to change, and test-retest reliability were reported for a few. DISCUSSION: Most tools had been validated in mixed populations and are relatively insensitive to differences in fatigue to cancer stage. Most instruments are burdensome for those with advanced cancer. The Brief Fatigue Inventory and 3 fatigue items of the European Organization for Research and Treatment Quality of Life Questionnaire Fatigue Scale (EORTC QLQ-C30) are optimal instruments in advanced cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In all, 40 CRF instruments were identified. Validity and reliability varied by questionnaire. The ideal item numbers, scale, and domains are not established and may be population dependent.
Authors: Simone Oerlemans; Floortje Mols; Djamila E Issa; J H F M Pruijt; Wim G Peters; Marnix Lybeert; Wobbe Zijlstra; Jan Willem W Coebergh; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Norbert Köhler; Lutz Gansera; Sigrun Holze; Michael Friedrich; Udo Rebmann; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Michael C Truss; Dirk Fahlenkamp; Hans-Jörg Scholz; Elmar Brähler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: T Veni; S Boyas; B Beaune; H Bourgeois; A Rahmani; S Landry; A Bochereau; S Durand; B Morel Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-06-24 Impact factor: 3.603