Cancer symptom assessment instruments: A systematic review
Cancer symptom assessment instruments: A systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1200/jco.2005.02.8332
复制
发表时间：
2006-03-20
影响因子：
45.3
通讯作者：
Russell, KM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kirkova, J;Davis, MP;Russell, KM
目的已经创建了多种评估工具来识别癌症症状。我们系统地回顾了癌症症状评估工具发表在English.MethodsA系统检索MEDLINE数据库，科克伦图书馆，护理和相关健康文献的累积索引（CINAHL），和EMBASE。通过BIOSIS识别非同行评审文章。通过PubMed中的相关文章链接访问文章，手动检索参考文献。如果该工具将症状评估作为主要结局，则纳入研究。生活质量的仪器被排除在外。ResultsWe确定了21仪器，有些经过修改或验证。另外28项研究检查了症状的患病率和相互关系，其中许多涉及症状检查表。研究在设计、患者特征、症状和结局方面各不相同。由于设计、研究结局和验证的异质性，无法进行荟萃分析。76篇文章和2篇会议摘要（来自MEDLINE、科克伦、CINAHL、EMBASE、BIOSIS、PubMed中的相关文章链接和手动检索）符合入选/排除标准。电子检索（无相关链接）仅获得26%符合纳入标准的文章和会议摘要。手动搜索相关文章，识别出59%的研究。结论确定了21种仪器适合临床使用。这些工具在症状内容和心理测量学验证程度上各不相同。已经开发了全面和较短的工具，有些工具用于特定症状评估或与治疗有关的症状。没有理想的工具，各种各样的工具反映了症状评估的不同设置。需要进行更多的研究。
PurposeA variety of assessment instruments have been created to identify cancer symptoms. We reviewed systematically cancer symptom assessment instruments published in English.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionTwenty-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.