Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30838697›Full record

SynthesisPsycho-oncology2019

Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review.

Anne Shrestha, Charlene Martin, Maria Burton, Stephen Walters, Karen Collins, Lynda Wyld

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 200 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed, 23 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

200 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Association of spirituality and quality of life in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  7. The effects of enteral tube feeding on nutrition, survival, and quality of life outcomes in advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic literature review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Health state utility values by cancer stage: a systematic literature review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

140 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Anne ShresthaDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.ORCID 0000-0002-5879-5534
Charlene MartinDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.ORCID 0000-0002-0988-0353
Maria BurtonFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-8181
Stephen WaltersSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Karen CollinsFaculty of Health and Wellbeing, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.ORCID 0000-0002-4317-142X
Lynda WyldDepartment of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePatients with cancer face difficult decisions regarding treatment and the possibility of trading quality of life (QoL) for length of life (LoL). Little information is available regarding patients' preferences and attitudes toward their cancer treatment and the personal costs they are prepared to exchange to extend their life. The aim of this review is to determine the complex trade-offs and underpinning factors that make patients with cancer choose quality over quantity of life.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted using MeSH terms: cancer, longevity or LoL, QoL, decision making, trade-off, and health utility. Articles retrieved were published between 1942 and October 2018.

resultsOut of 4393 articles, 30 were included in this review. Older age, which may be linked to declining physical status, was associated with a preference for QoL over LoL. Younger patients were more likely to undergo aggressive treatment to increase survival years. Preference for QoL and LoL was not influenced by gender, education, religion, having children, marital status, or type of cancer. Patients with better health valued LoL and inversely those with poorer physical status preferred QoL.

conclusionBaseline QoL and future expectations of life seem to be key determinants of preference for QoL versus LoL in cancer patients. In-depth studies are required to understand these trade-offs and the compromises patients are willing to make regarding QoL or LoL, especially in older patients with naturally limited life expectancy.

Indexed as

Patient PreferenceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsReligion and PsychologyValue of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude to DeathDecision MakingFemaleHumansLongevityMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient Satisfactioncancerdecision makinglongevityquality of lifetrade-off

Identifiers

PMID30838697
PMCPMC6619389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.