BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates for cancer-related fatigue vary widely depending on how fatigue is defined and assessed. In 1998, formal diagnostic criteria were proposed for a syndrome of cancer-related fatigue. These criteria were intended to facilitate the study of cancer-related fatigue and the development of appropriate interventions to ameliorate fatigue. Although the criteria have been widely cited, to date, there has been no systematic review of research using the criteria that might inform their continued use or revision. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting results based on use of the diagnostic criteria. Data were analyzed to characterize the reliability and validity of the criteria and to describe the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue. RESULTS: We identified nine eligible studies. The purpose of the majority of the studies was to estimate the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue; there was considerable variability with respect to design and nature of the samples included. Although few studies examined reliability of the criteria, findings reported support their reliability. The validity of the criteria judged relative to established measures of fatigue and related constructs appears to be strong. Prevalence rates for cancer-related fatigue based on the diagnostic criteria vary widely, reflecting a lack of consistency in how the criteria have been applied. CONCLUSIONS: As a comprehensive approach to diagnosing cancer-related fatigue, the diagnostic criteria have received relatively scant attention by the clinical research community. Our findings suggest the need for research aimed at revising the criteria, enhancing their usefulness, and promoting their more widespread use.
BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates for cancer-related fatigue vary widely depending on how fatigue is defined and assessed. In 1998, formal diagnostic criteria were proposed for a syndrome of cancer-related fatigue. These criteria were intended to facilitate the study of cancer-related fatigue and the development of appropriate interventions to ameliorate fatigue. Although the criteria have been widely cited, to date, there has been no systematic review of research using the criteria that might inform their continued use or revision. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature reporting results based on use of the diagnostic criteria. Data were analyzed to characterize the reliability and validity of the criteria and to describe the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue. RESULTS: We identified nine eligible studies. The purpose of the majority of the studies was to estimate the prevalence of cancer-related fatigue; there was considerable variability with respect to design and nature of the samples included. Although few studies examined reliability of the criteria, findings reported support their reliability. The validity of the criteria judged relative to established measures of fatigue and related constructs appears to be strong. Prevalence rates for cancer-related fatigue based on the diagnostic criteria vary widely, reflecting a lack of consistency in how the criteria have been applied. CONCLUSIONS: As a comprehensive approach to diagnosing cancer-related fatigue, the diagnostic criteria have received relatively scant attention by the clinical research community. Our findings suggest the need for research aimed at revising the criteria, enhancing their usefulness, and promoting their more widespread use.
Authors: Paul Posadzki; Tae-Woong Moon; Tae-Young Choi; Tae-Yong Park; Myeong Soo Lee; Edzard Ernst Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-02-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Isrid Sturm; Johanna Baak; Benjamin Storek; Annette Traore; Peter Thuss-Patience Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Michael J Fisch; Fengmin Zhao; Ann M O'Mara; Xin Shelley Wang; David Cella; Charles S Cleeland Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-10-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shelley A Johns; Linda F Brown; Kathleen Beck-Coon; Patrick O Monahan; Yan Tong; Kurt Kroenke Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ann M Berger; Kathi Mooney; Amy Alvarez-Perez; William S Breitbart; Kristen M Carpenter; David Cella; Charles Cleeland; Efrat Dotan; Mario A Eisenberger; Carmen P Escalante; Paul B Jacobsen; Catherine Jankowski; Thomas LeBlanc; Jennifer A Ligibel; Elizabeth Trice Loggers; Belinda Mandrell; Barbara A Murphy; Oxana Palesh; William F Pirl; Steven C Plaxe; Michelle B Riba; Hope S Rugo; Carolina Salvador; Lynne I Wagner; Nina D Wagner-Johnston; Finly J Zachariah; Mary Anne Bergman; Courtney Smith Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Julie M Cessna; Heather S L Jim; Steven K Sutton; Yasmin Asvat; Brent J Small; John M Salsman; Babu Zachariah; Mayer Fishman; Teresa Field; Hugo Fernandez; Lia Perez; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.006