Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29532245›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

A systematic review of the measurement properties of the Body Image Scale (BIS) in cancer patients.

Heleen C Melissant, Koen I Neijenhuijs, Femke Jansen, Neil K Aaronson, Mogens Groenvold, Bernhard Holzner, Caroline B Terwee, Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan, Pim Cuijpers, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Dutch normative data of the sexual distress scale and the body image scale.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Heleen C MelissantDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Koen I NeijenhuijsDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Femke JansenCancer Center Amsterdam (CCA), VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1118, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mogens GroenvoldThe Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, 20D, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen NV, Denmark.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Anichstraβe 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Caroline B TerweeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1089a, 1081HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Cornelia F van Uden-KraanDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim CuijpersDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. IM.Verdonck@vumc.nl.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding VUP 2014-7202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionBody image is acknowledged as an important aspect of health-related quality of life in cancer patients. The Body Image Scale (BIS) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate body image in cancer patients. The aim of this study was to systematically review measurement properties of the BIS among cancer patients.

methodsA search in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that investigated measurement properties of the BIS (Prospero ID 42017057237). Study quality was assessed (excellent, good, fair, poor), and data were extracted and analyzed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology on structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness. Evidence was categorized into sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate.

resultsNine studies were included. Evidence was sufficient for structural validity (one factor solution), internal consistency (α = 0.86-0.96), and reliability (r > 0.70); indeterminate for measurement error (information on minimal important change lacked) and responsiveness (increasing body image disturbance in only one study); and inconsistent for hypothesis testing (conflicting results). Quality of the evidence was moderate to low. No studies reported on cross-cultural validity.

conclusionThe BIS is a PROM with good structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability, but good quality studies on the other measurement properties are needed to optimize evidence. It is recommended to include a wider variety of cancer diagnoses and treatment modalities in these future studies.

Indexed as

Body Dysmorphic DisordersHumansNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeBody imageBody Image ScaleCancerMeasurement propertiesPROMSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29532245
PMCPMC5919987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.