ReviewAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Global Review of Tools Evaluating Quality of Life in Cervical Cancer Survivors Treated With Chemoradiation Therapy.
Review in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors affecting health-related quality of life in cervical cancer survivors: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Korea.BMC women's health · 2026Observational
- Multidimensional assessment of urinary dysfunction and quality of life after cervical cancer treatment: a multicenter study integrating urodynamics and patient-reported outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Mendelian randomization analysis of immune cell characteristics and genetic variants in cervical cancer risk: a genome-wide association study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Mendelian randomization reveals limited causal effects of genetic variants on cervical cancer risk: insights from immune cell populations.Discover oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review aimed to identify and compare tools used to evaluate quality of life (QoL) after pelvic radiation for cervical cancer and to describe variations in results within commonly used instruments. This review hypothesized regional preferences in the selection of these tools and an absence of uniformity in their application globally. Methods and Materials: A comprehensive search of 6 databases was conducted between the inception of each included database and June 14, 2023, focusing on studies evaluating the QoL of patients with cervical cancer during and after radiation. Excluded were studies involving cancers originating outside the cervix, those not exclusively undergoing radiation or chemoradiation therapy, such as patients who have undergone surgery, and non-English studies. Results: Ultimately, 229 studies covering 25,693 patients and 51 countries were identified. Most studies were conducted in Asia (35.6%) and Europe (32.9%). Ninety-nine QoL instruments were identified, not including those that were specific to a single study. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (20.5%) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL questionnaire cervical cancer module (16.0%) were the most commonly used; however, US-based studies primarily used the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General surveys. Furthermore, there was significant variability in the timelines of survey usage in relation to when treatment was completed, further limiting the comparisons that can be made. Of the 127 studies that reported data on the time points after completion of treatment at which QoL was measured, 72.4% measured QoL within 1 year of treatment completion, and 48.8% measured QoL >1 year after treatment completion, with some studies using multiple time points for their research. Conclusions: This study revealed a fragmented landscape with significant variability in QoL survey use, limiting the generalizability and usefulness of these results to drive meaningful change. There is a need for a global standardized method to evaluate QoL after treatment of cervical cancer with radiation therapy for comparison across regions. Simplified tools may assist with the broader collection of data, which may lead to advancements for improvement of the QoL of these patients.
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.