Assessing health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a systematic and standardized comparison of available instruments using the EMPRO tool

PURPOSE

The objective was to obtain a standardized evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer health-related quality-of-life instruments.

METHODS

We carried out systematic literature reviews in the PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify manuscripts which contained information regarding either the development process or metric properties of health-related quality-of-life instruments used among breast cancer patients. Each instrument was evaluated independently by two researchers, and occasionally a third one, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. An overall score and seven attribute-specific EMPRO scores were calculated (range 0-100, worst to best): concept and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms.

RESULTS

FACT-B was the instrument with the best global performance, obtaining an overall EMPRO score of 79.27. It was also the most accurate instrument on the Concept and Measurement Model, Reliability, and Interpretability attributes. Four more instruments scored over 50 points on the overall score, which summarizes the five attribute-specific scores: EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, WHO-QOL BREF, and SF-36. An overall score of at least 50 points implies that the use of these instruments could be recommended for assessing health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

The FACT-B scored the highest on overall on our EMPRO evaluation of instruments measuring health-related quality of life among breast cancer patients. However, depending on the purpose of the study, several instruments (EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF) have shown good performance in some of the specific individual dimensions included in the EMPRO.

Chinese cross-culturally adapted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for knee disorders: a systematic review and assessment using the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) instrument

BACKGROUND

Knee patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used in research in China, but there is limited evidence on the quality of cross-culturally adapted and original Chinese PROMs. We investigated Chinese language knee PROMs to provide evidence for clinicians on their quality and to guide PROM choices.

METHOD

A systematic literature search of databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CNKI, using adequate search strings and a three-step screen process identified relevant studies. An independent standardized assessment of the selected studies based on the Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool was performed. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles corresponding to 23 knee PROMs were evaluated with EMPRO global scores (100) ranging from 11.11 to 55.42. The attributes 'reliability,' 'validity,' and 'cultural and language adaptation' were significantly better evaluated compared to the attributes 'responsiveness,' 'interpretability,' and 'burden' (for all comparisons p < 0.0001). Moderate-to-excellent inter-rater agreement was observed with ICC values ranging from 0.538 to 0.934.

CONCLUSION

We identified six PROMs with a minimum acceptable threshold (> 50/100). The osteoarthritis of knee and hip quality of life, the lower extremity function scale, and the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation tool ranked highest. Nevertheless, no single PROM had evidence encompassing all EMPRO attributes, necessitating further studies, especially on responsiveness, interpretability, and burden. We identified duplication of effort as shown by repeated translations of the same PROM; this inefficiency could be ameliorated by rapid approval of Chinese language PROMs documented on original PROM developers' platforms.

Evaluating conceptual model measurement and psychometric properties of Oral health-related quality of life instruments available for older adults: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Older adults present a variety of oral diseases and conditions, in addition to co-morbidities and limited access to dental care, which significantly impact their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). There are many instruments published to measure OHRQoL. However, it is challenging for clinicians and researchers to choose the best instrument for a given purpose.

PURPOSE

To identify OHRQoL instruments available for older adults and summarize the evidence on the conceptual and measurement model, psychometric properties, interpretability, and administration issues of OHRQoL instruments available for older adults through a systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to February 2023. Articles reporting information on the concept model measurement, psychometric properties, and administration issues of an instrument measuring OHRQoL in older adults were included. Two researchers independently evaluated each instrument using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. The overall score and seven attribute-specific scores were calculated (range 0-100): Conceptual and measurement model, Reliability, Validity, Responsiveness, Interpretability, Burden, and Alternative forms.

RESULTS

We identified 14 instruments evaluated in 97 articles. The overall score varied between 73.7 and 8.9, with only six questionnaires over the threshold score 50.0. EORTC QLQ OH-15 (cancer-specific questionnaire) achieved the highest score (73.7), followed by OHIP (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (66.9), GOHAI (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.5), and OHIDL (generic OHRQoL questionnaire) (65.2). Overall, the Conceptual and measurement model and Validity showed the best performance, while Responsiveness and Interpretability showed the worst. Insufficient information was presented for an overall evaluation of DSQ and OHAI.

CONCLUSION

The evidence supports using EORTC QLQ-OH15 as a specific instrument to assess OHRQoL in cancer patients and the OHIP-49, GOHAI, or OHIDL as generic instruments to assess OHRQoL either for cross-sectional or longitudinal studies in older adults.