Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35233732›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2022

Assessing the content based on ICF and quality based on COSMIN criteria of patient-reported outcome measures of functioning in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review.

Farkhondeh Jamshidi, Maryam Farzad, Joy C MacDermid, Azar Varahra, Seyed Ali Hosseini, Mojtaba Habibi Asgarabad

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Validation of the Brazilian Version of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) for Women After Breast Cancer Surgery.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025
    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.

Farkhondeh JamshidiDepartment of Occupational Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7514-4370
Maryam FarzadSchool of Physical Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario. Roth McFarlane Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph's Hospital, London, ON, Canada. mfarzad@uwo.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5470-5319
Joy C MacDermidPhysical Therapy and Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Azar VarahraHealth and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7748-9997
Seyed Ali HosseiniOccupational Therapy Department, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9126-3612
Mojtaba Habibi AsgarabadHealth Promotion Research Center, Department of Health Psychology, School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5011-2823

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify currently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate disability in breast cancer survivors (BC) and critically evaluate their content and measurement properties.

methodsFour electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched from 2001 to February 2021. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The content of the included PROM was evaluated by linking the items of the questionnaires to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for BC using standard linking rules. Methodological quality and measurement properties were assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Qualitative synthesis was used to summarize the evidence on content validity and measurement properties. The overall quality of evidence on each measurement property was provided using GRADE principles.

resultsTen eligible studies reported measurement properties of seven PROMs. The content of included PROMs mostly focused on disability (70% of items), and less on body function and structure (23%) or environmental factors (6%). There was high linkage to The Comprehensive Core Set for BC, Q-DASH (100%), UEFI (95%) and DASH (92%). The Core Set Unique Disability Representation for DASH, and WHODAS2 was 39% and BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF was 34%. BCSQ-BC, and Lymph-ICF represented 32, and 20% of the content of the Core Set for BC, respectively, however, the other questionnaires covered less than 20% of the content of the Core Set. High quality of evidence supports sufficient results for internal consistency, testretest, and measurement error for BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF, DASH and WHODAS2.

conclusionsDespite a lack of evidence on all-important clinical measurement, two generic (DASH and WHODAS2) and two disease-specific (BCSQ-BC, Lymph-ICF) PROM demonstrated emerging evidence of adequate measurement properties. The stronger alignment of the BCSQ-BC to the breast cancer ICF core set makes it preferable is a disease-specific measure. The Lymph-ICF is recommended where lymphedema is a specific focus. The DASH and WHODAS2 might be most useful where patients with a variety of upper extremity conditions, including breast cancer survivors, are being evaluated in the clinic or research study.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsLymphedemaFemaleHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesBreast cancer survivorsCOSMINICF core set for breast cancerLymph-ICFPatient-reported outcomesPsychometric propertiesUpper extremity

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.