Esther H J Hamoen1, Maarten De Rooij2, J Alfred Witjes3, Jelle O Barentsz4, Maroeska M Rovers5. 1. Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Electronic address: esther.hamoen@radboudumc.nl. 2. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands; Department of Health Evidence, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify and study the psychometric properties of the most used health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all studies on prostate cancer using a HRQoL instrument. The most often used HRQoL instruments were investigated in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data were extracted regarding the characteristics and psychometric values of the instruments, i.e., content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability. Good psychometric outcomes indicate a high methodological quality of the instrument. RESULTS: Our systematic search revealed 13,812 potential relevant articles, of which 2,258 appeared relevant after screening the titles and reading the abstracts. We studied the psychometric properties of the 20 most often used HRQoL instruments, the first 3 of which were the Expanded Prostate Index Composite, University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Content validity, internal consistency (α>0.70), criterion validity, construct validity, and reproducibility were good in 60%, 90%, 10%, 35%, and 65% of the 20 instruments, respectively. Responsiveness was not reported for 12 of 20 instruments (60%). Floor and ceiling effects and the interpretability of the questionnaires were only reported in 3 (15%) and 6 (30%) instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the psychometric properties, we advise to use the SF-12 as a generic instrument, the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-SF or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General as cancer-specific HRQoL instruments, and the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, the QUFW94, or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate as prostate cancer-specific instruments.
OBJECTIVES: To identify and study the psychometric properties of the most used health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) instruments in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed and EMBASE to identify all studies on prostate cancer using a HRQoL instrument. The most often used HRQoL instruments were investigated in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data were extracted regarding the characteristics and psychometric values of the instruments, i.e., content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability. Good psychometric outcomes indicate a high methodological quality of the instrument. RESULTS: Our systematic search revealed 13,812 potential relevant articles, of which 2,258 appeared relevant after screening the titles and reading the abstracts. We studied the psychometric properties of the 20 most often used HRQoL instruments, the first 3 of which were the Expanded Prostate Index Composite, University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Content validity, internal consistency (α>0.70), criterion validity, construct validity, and reproducibility were good in 60%, 90%, 10%, 35%, and 65% of the 20 instruments, respectively. Responsiveness was not reported for 12 of 20 instruments (60%). Floor and ceiling effects and the interpretability of the questionnaires were only reported in 3 (15%) and 6 (30%) instruments. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the psychometric properties, we advise to use the SF-12 as a generic instrument, the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-SF or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General as cancer-specific HRQoL instruments, and the University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index, the QUFW94, or the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate as prostate cancer-specific instruments.
Authors: Edmond P H Choi; Carlos K H Wong; Eric Y F Wan; James H L Tsu; W Y Chin; Kenny Kung; M K Yiu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jens Klein; Daniel Lüdecke; Kerstin Hofreuter-Gätgens; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Olaf von dem Knesebeck Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: B G Muller; W van den Bos; M Brausi; J J Fütterer; S Ghai; P A Pinto; I V Popeneciu; T M de Reijke; C Robertson; J J M C H de la Rosette; S Scionti; B Turkbey; H Wijkstra; O Ukimura; T J Polascik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Stefanie Schmidt; Olatz Garin; Yolanda Pardo; José M Valderas; Jordi Alonso; Pablo Rebollo; Luis Rajmil; Carlos Garcia-Forero; Montse Ferrer Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-04-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sigrid Carlsson; Linda Drevin; Stacy Loeb; Anders Widmark; Ingela Franck Lissbrant; David Robinson; Eva Johansson; Pär Stattin; Per Fransson Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Jens Klein; Kerstin Hofreuter-Gätgens; Daniel Lüdecke; Margit Fisch; Markus Graefen; Olaf von dem Knesebeck Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 2.692