SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Responsiveness and clinical utility of patient-reported outcome instruments in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo synthesize and evaluate current evidence on the responsiveness, interpretability (MID/MIC), and clinical utility of validated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used in adults with head and neck cancer (HNC).
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library (Central) identified studies published from January 2015 to July 2025. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251128978) and followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Observational and interventional studies assessing HRQoL using validated HNC instruments (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-H&N35/H&N43, UW-QOL, FACT-H&N or MDADI) were included. Eligible studies reported responsiveness (ability to detect meaningful change) or clinical applicability. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and results were narratively synthesized due to methodological heterogeneity.
resultsThirteen studies involving 8,075 patients met the inclusion criteria. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35/43, UW-QOL, FACT-H&N, and MDADI exhibited consistent responsiveness, capturing expected HRQoL deterioration during treatment and partial recovery within 6-12 months. Reported minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) values typically ranged from 4 to 15 points for improvement and 10-20 points for deterioration, supporting the interpretability of change scores. Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) also demonstrated prognostic relevance, with early HRQoL changes associated with survival or recurrence.
conclusionValidated HRQoL questionnaires in HNC demonstrate robust responsiveness and meaningful clinical applicability, supporting their integration into routine oncology practice. Their use may enhance early detection of complications, guide rehabilitative interventions, and facilitate more individualized, patient-centered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42070173What 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.