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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic potential and mechanisms of rehabilitation interventions in preventing cancer metastasis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- 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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
35233732What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.