SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Systematic review and standardized comparison of health-related quality-of-life instruments available for patients with oral cavity cancer and oropharyngeal cancer.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice for Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Validating cancer-specific and generic quality of life (QoL) instruments among patients with head and neck cancers: incorporating the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Head and Neck Module with generic QoL instruments.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2026Article
- A scientometric study on research trends and characteristics of oral health-related quality of life among head and neck cancer patients.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundTo identify HRQoL instruments available for oral cavity cancer (OCC) or oropharyngeal cancer (OC) patients and to summarize the evidence on conceptual model measurement, psychometric and administration properties. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and LILACS until April 2023. We included studies evaluating the concept model measurement, psychometric and administration properties of instruments measuring HRQoL in OCC or OC patients. Two researchers assessed each instrument independently, using the Evaluating Measures of Patient-Reported Outcomes (EMPRO) tool. We calculated the overall and seven attribute-specific scores (range 0-100) using the conceptual and measurement model, reliability, validity, responsiveness, interpretability, burden, and alternative forms.
resultsWe included seven instruments across 42 articles. The overall EMPRO score of these instruments varied between 84.1 and 29.3, with five questionnaires exceeding the threshold score of 50.0. The domains of conceptual and measurement model and interpretability performed best, while responsiveness exhibited the lowest performance.
conclusionsThe findings support the use of EORTC QLQ-H&N43, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-OH15 as suitable HRQoL instruments for both cross-sectional or longitudinal studies to measure physical, symptomatic, psychological, or social impacts in patients with OCC or OC. FACT-H&N and UW-QoL were deemed appropriate for evaluating HRQoL in cross-sectional studies in these patients.
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.