Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623483›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2024

Comparing the contents of patient-reported outcome measures for fatigue: EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-FA12, FACIT, PRO-CTCAE, PROMIS, Brief Fatigue Inventory, Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, and Piper Fatigue Scale.

Maria Rothmund, Micha J Pilz, Nathalie Egeter, Emma Lidington, Claire Piccinin, Juan I Arraras, Mogens Groenvold, Bernhard Holzner, Marieke van Leeuwen, Morten Aa Petersen and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Mapping the EORTC item library to the World Health Organization international classification of functioning, disability and health: a content analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

15 authors.

Maria RothmundDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, BA, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria.
Micha J PilzDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, BA, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria.
Nathalie EgeterDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, BA, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria.
Emma LidingtonCancer Prevention Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, Empire House, 67-75 New Rd, London, E1 1HH, UK.
Claire PiccininQuality of Life Department, EORTC, Avenue E. Mounier, 83/11, Brussels, 1200, Belgium.
Juan I ArrarasMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario de Navarra, C/Irunlarrea 3, Pamplona, ES-31008, Spain.
Mogens GroenvoldPalliative Care Research Unit, Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine GP, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hospital, Bispebjerg bakke 23, Copenhagen, DK-2400, Denmark.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, Innsbruck Medical University, University Clinic of Psychiatry I, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria.
Marieke van LeeuwenDivision of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, SO22 4NR, The Netherlands.
Morten Aa PetersenPalliative Care Research Unit, Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine GP, Bispebjerg & Frederiksberg Hospital, Bispebjerg bakke 23, Copenhagen, DK-2400, Denmark.
John RamageDepartment Gastroenterology, Hampshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, University of Winchester, Sparkford Rd, Winchester SO22 4NR, Hampshire, RG24 9NA, UK.
Heike SchmidtUniversity Clinic and Outpatient Clinic for Radiotherapy and Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), DE-06108, Germany.
Teresa YoungLynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, Middlesex, Rickmansworth Rd, HA6 2RN, UK.
Johannes M GiesingerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, and Medical Psychology, BA, University Clinic of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstraße 35, Innsbruck, A-6020, Austria. johannes.giesinger@i-med.ac.at.
EORTC Quality of Life Group

Funding

EORTC Quality of Life Group 011-2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess fatigue in cancer patients, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are available that differ in content. To support the selection of suitable measures for specific applications and to evaluate possibilities of quantitative linking, the present study provides a content comparison of common fatigue measures, scales, and item banks. We included the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-FA12, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACIT-F, PROMIS Fatigue (Cancer item bank v1.0), Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20), Piper Fatigue Scale (PFS-12), and PRO-CTCAE.

methodsAll items of the included measures were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Additionally, they were categorized as assessing general, physical, emotional, or cognitive fatigue. Descriptive statistics were used to display the contents covered in each measure and to allow for a qualitative comparison.

resultsThe measures consist of 160 items in total and covered primarily contents of the ICF components 'Body functions', 'Activities and participation', and 'Environmental Factors'. Most ICF codings refer to 'b1300 Energy level' (9-67% of the codings per instrument; 47% of all coded content). Within the broad categorization of types of fatigue, most items were classified as general fatigue (33-100% of the codings per instrument; 49% of the overall item pool). While the EORTC CAT Core focuses exclusively on physical and general fatigue, FACIT and BFI additionally assess emotional fatigue. The EORTC QLQ-FA12, PROMIS, MFI-20, and PFS-12 cover all fatigue components, including cognitive fatigue. DISCUSSION: The review provides an in-depth content comparison of PROMs assessing cancer-related fatigue. This can inform the selection of suitable measures in different clinical contexts. Furthermore, it will inform quantitative analyses to facilitate comparison of scores obtained with different PROMs.

Indexed as

FatigueNeoplasmsPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeFemaleHumansMalePsychometricsSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerContent analysisEORTC CATFACITFatigueOncologyPatient-reported outcome measuresPRO-CTCAEPROMISQLQ-C30

Identifiers

PMID39623483
PMCPMC11613840

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.