Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30815769›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2019

Measuring fatigue in cancer patients: a common metric for six fatigue instruments.

Michael Friedrich, Andreas Hinz, Susanne Kuhnt, Thomas Schulte, Matthias Rose, Felix Fischer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Sleep quality in cancer patients: a common metric for several instruments measuring sleep quality.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors.

Michael FriedrichDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. michael.friedrich@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0528-1564
Andreas HinzDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6986-8145
Susanne KuhntDepartment of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-2147
Thomas SchulteRehabilitation Clinic Bad Oexen, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Matthias RoseDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Felix FischerDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine, Center for Internal Medicine and Dermatology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9693-6676

Funding

Deutsche Krebshilfe 70112267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeFatigue is one of the most disabling symptoms in cancer patients. Many instruments exist to measure fatigue. This variety impedes the comparison of data across studies or to the general population. We aimed to estimate a common metric based on six different fatigue instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30 subscale fatigue, EORTC QLQ-FA12, MFI subscale General Fatigue, BFI, Fatigue Scale, and Fatigue Diagnostic Interview Guide) to convert the patients' scores from one of the instruments to another. Additionally, we linked the common metric to the general population.

methodsFor n = 1225 cancer patients, the common metric was estimated using the Item Response Theory framework. The linking between the common metric of the patients and the general population was estimated using linear regression.

resultsThe common metric was based on a model with acceptable fit (CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06). Based on the standard error of measurement the reliability coefficients of the questionnaires ranged from 0.80 to 0.95. The common metric of the six questionnaires, also linked to the general population, is reported graphically and in supplementary crosswalk tables.

conclusionsOur study enables researchers and clinicians to directly compare results across studies using different fatigue questionnaires and to assess the degree of fatigue with respect to the general population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFatigueFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCancerCommon metricFatigueGeneral population

Identifiers

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.