Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28653217›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2017

Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: A systematic review.

A Ó Céilleachair, J F O'Mahony, M O'Connor, J O'Leary, C Normand, C Martin, L Sharp

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Utility of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) to measure primary health outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

A Ó CéilleachairNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Cork, Ireland. a.oceilleachair@ncri.ie.ORCID 0000-0002-8104-9273
J F O'MahonyCentre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
M O'ConnorNational Cancer Registry Ireland, Building 6800, Cork Airport Business Park, Cork, Ireland.
J O'LearyCoombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
C NormandCentre for Health Policy and Management, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
C MartinCoombe Women and Infants University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
L SharpInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Coombe Women & Infants University Hospital · IENational Cancer Registry · IETrinity College Dublin · IENewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeCost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of screening can be highly sensitive to the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) effects of screen tests and subsequent treatment. Accordingly, accurate assessment of HRQoL is essential. We reviewed the literature regarding HRQoL in cervical prevention and management in order to appraise the current evidence regarding this important input to CEA.

methodsWe searched the MEDLINE, Scopus and EconLit databases for studies that estimated HRQoL in cervical cancer prevention and management published January 1995-December 2015. The primary inclusion criterion was for studies that assess HRQoL using the EQ-5D. Data were abstracted from eligible studies on setting, elicitation group, sample size, elicitation instruments, health state valuations, study design and follow-up. We assessed the quality and comparability of the studies with a particular focus on the HRQoL reported across states and groups.

resultsFifteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Most used patient elicitation groups (n = 11), 2 used the general public and 2 used a mix of both. Eight studies were cross-sectional and seven were longitudinal. Six studies used both the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS together with other measures of overall HRQoL or condition-specific instruments. Extensive heterogeneity was observed across study characteristics.

conclusionsOur results reveal the challenges of sourcing reliable estimates of HRQoL for use in CEAs of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. The EQ-5D appears insufficiently sensitive for some health states. A more general problem is the paucity of HRQoL estimates for many health states and their change over time.

Indexed as

Uterine Cervical DiseasesCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningQuality of LifeResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesCervical cancerHealth economicsHealth-related quality of lifeHuman papillomavirusScreeningSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28653217
OpenAlexW2657575622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.