ArticleIntegrative cancer therapies
Comparing Disease-Specific and Generic Quality of Life in Korean Breast Cancer Survivors Using the FACT-B and QLI: The Importance of Instrument Selection.
Article in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients during Chemotherapy: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR45.European journal of breast health · 2025Article
- Cognitive Retraining and Functional Treatment (CRAFT) for adults with cancer related cognitive impairment: a preliminary efficacy study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Usefulness of Midline Catheters versus Peripheral Venous Catheters in an Inpatient Unit: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality of life (QOL) has become an important indicator for evaluating patients' symptoms and their overall satisfaction with life. Thus, examining QOL is essential for fully understanding the life satisfaction of breast cancer survivors (BCS). However, selecting the appropriate instrument for QOL measurement is challenging, and few studies have compared disease-specific and generic QOL measures and how they reflect the impact of cancer-related symptoms on QOL in BCS. We examined QOL in BCS using both disease-specific and generic instruments and compared their representation of the QOL impacts of anxiety, depression, sleep, fatigability, and posttraumatic growth.
methodsThis study involved analysis of follow-up data for an exercise intervention called the BLESS (Better Life after cancer, Energy, Strength, and Support) program, which included 40 BCS treated at 1 medical center in South Korea. Their QOL was assessed using both the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) and Quality of Life Index (QLI).
resultsBoth FACT-B and QLI total scores revealed that Korean BCS had low levels of QOL. Furthermore, both FACT-B and QLI total scores were significantly related to anxiety, depression, sleep, fatigability, and posttraumatic growth in the participants. Notably, multivariate regression analysis of FACT-B and QLI total scores showed different predictors for QOL: with the FACT-B, depression was the only significant predictor, while with the QLI, posttraumatic growth was the only significant predictor.
conclusionThe selection of a given QOL instrument may affect the overall findings and interpretation of the impacts of related symptoms. The FACT-B should be considered for studies of symptoms such as depression, while the QLI is more appropriate for examining overall QOL and posttraumatic growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.