ReviewInternational journal of nursing studies advances2025
Psychometric properties and content of instruments for assessing penile cancer patients' quality of life: A systematic review.
Review in International journal of nursing studies advances, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To describe the psychometric properties and content of the instruments used for assessing penile cancer patients' quality of life. Design: A systematic review. Method: A systematic literature search was conducted in October 2024 across four electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The systematic approach was adhered to when conducting the review, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to ensure explicit reporting. The search across the four databases generated 135 articles, out of which 16 were included in the review. Results: Eight instruments assessing the quality of life (QoL) among penile cancer patients were identified: four generic, two cancer-specific, and two penile cancer-specific. The content of these instruments fell into three main categories: physical functioning, psychosocial resilience, and overall life functions. However, none of the instruments covered all these aspects comprehensively. Additionally, no instrument was reported to be thoroughly valid or reliable. Conclusions: A psychometrically tested and validated QoL instrument that covers all aspects of penile cancer patients' well-being was not found. There is a need for holistic instruments tailored to evaluate and improve the QoL for these patients. Such instruments would enable the identification and comparison of individual care needs and factors influencing their QoL.
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.