SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Quality-of-life measures in pharmacogenomic studies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are various quality of life (QoL) tools utilised in pharmacogenomic studies, but it remains unclear which tools are most frequently used. Our aim was to identify the types of QoL measures currently used in pharmacogenomic studies and address the existing evidence gap.
methodsA systematic review screened PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Embase from inception through April 30, 2024. The search terms were "Pharmacogenetics" AND ("quality of life" OR "PROMS" OR "PREMS" OR "health related quality of life" OR "'EuroQol" OR "utility" OR "generic" OR "time trade off" OR "standard gamble" OR "SF-6D" OR "EQ-5D"). Our inclusion criteria were randomised clinical trials, cohort studies and cross-sectional studies that utilised generic and/or disease-specific QoL measures related to pharmacogenomics.
resultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria, from which we identified the following tools: EORTC QLQ-C30 (n = 3), SF-36 (n = 3), SF-12 (n = 1), WHOQOL-BREF (n = 1), Q-LES-Q-SF (n = 1), FACT-Melanoma (n = 1), QLQ-C30 + QLQ BN20 (n = 1), QLQ-C30 + QLQ-CIPN20 (n = 1). The SF-36, SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, and Q-LES-Q-SF are generic QoL questionnaires, while FACT-Melanoma, QLQ BN20, and QLQ-CIPN20 are disease specific. The EORTC QLQ-C20, although generic, is tailored for cancer patients. None of the included studies justified their choice of quality-of-life tool, nor was there consistency in how scores were reported in terms of overall and domain-specific outcomes.
conclusionsPharmacogenomic studies employed diverse QoL instruments, hindering consistent and reliable reporting. Future studies should justify QoL tool selection and report both overall and domain-specific outcomes consistently to enable valid comparisons and inform decision-making.
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.