ArticleBMC cancer2025
Validation of the cancer fatigue scale (CFS) in a UK population.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
backgroundCancer-related fatigue is one of the most common symptoms in patients with cancer. Fatigue reduces health-related quality of life. The Cancer Fatigue Scale (CFS) is a brief instrument that captures the multidimensional nature of fatigue with robust validity. The original scale was developed/validated with Japanese cancer patients. It was our aim to report the psychometric properties of an English translation of the CFS.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted between February-October 2008 in London, UK. Three groups were recruited: cancer patients (index group), diabetic patients (chronic disease control group), and a healthy control group. All participants completed a questionnaire on recruitment and a subset were retested at 2-8 weeks. Reliability was assessed with analysis of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), homogeneity (item-total correlations) and test-retest reliability. Construct validity was assessed with inter-subscale correlations. To assess convergent validity, the correlations between the CFS and FNS, EORTC - QLQ C30, and HADS were examined with Spearman Rank correlation coefficients. The discriminant validity was determined by the known group method.
results160 participants were recruited: 60 cancer and 50 diabetes patients, and 50 healthy patients. Cronbach's alphas for the total scale and all three subscales (range 0.83,0.94) were all above the 0.70 criterion suggested for group comparisons thus the CFS showed excellent internal consistency. Homogeneity measures all fulfilled the 0.20 criterion (range 0.53-0.84). Combining the three groups, all test-retest correlations for the CFS and its subscales were above 0.7. Physical and affective subscales showed 100% scaling success. Both scores and sub-scores for the CFS correlated positively (p < 0.001) with FNS and HADS depression and anxiety subscales. The CFS correlated positively (p < 0.001) with all but one item of the EORTC-QLQ C30.
conclusionsThis evaluation of the measurement properties of the CFS-English shows that it is a reliable and valid tool for assessing key dimensions of cancer-related fatigue.
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.