Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

Charlotte L Moss; Teresa Guerrero-Urbano; Ingrid White; Benjamin Taylor; Rebecca Kristeleit; Ana Montes; Louis Fox; Katharina Beyer; Monika Sztankay; Maria M Ratti; Elena S Sisca; Alexandra Derevianko; Steven MacLennan; Nicholas Wood; Lisa M Wintner; Mieke Van Hemelrijck

doi:10.2217/fon-2022-0111

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

Charlotte L Moss, Teresa Guerrero-Urbano, Ingrid White, Benjamin Taylor, Rebecca Kristeleit, Ana Montes, Louis Fox, Katharina Beyer, Monika Sztankay, Maria M Ratti, Elena S Sisca, Alexandra Derevianko, Steven MacLennan, Nicholas Wood, Lisa M Wintner, Mieke Van Hemelrijck

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	663-678
Number of pages	16
Journal	Future Oncology
Volume	19
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2022-0111
Publication status	Published - 2 May 2023

Bibliographical note

Financial & competing interests disclosure
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Keywords

gynecologic
measurement properties
patient-reported outcome measurements
PROMS
quality of life

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.2217/fon-2022-0111

Cite this

Moss, C. L., Guerrero-Urbano, T., White, I., Taylor, B., Kristeleit, R., Montes, A., Fox, L., Beyer, K., Sztankay, M., Ratti, M. M., Sisca, E. S., Derevianko, A., MacLennan, S., Wood, N., Wintner, L. M., & Van Hemelrijck, M. (2023). Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review. Future Oncology, 19(9), 663-678. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2022-0111

Moss, CL, Guerrero-Urbano, T, White, I, Taylor, B, Kristeleit, R, Montes, A, Fox, L, Beyer, K, Sztankay, M, Ratti, MM, Sisca, ES, Derevianko, A, MacLennan, S, Wood, N, Wintner, LM & Van Hemelrijck, M 2023, 'Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review', Future Oncology, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 663-678. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2022-0111

@article{356fff75e25a49e69e37696c14164077,

title = "Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review",

abstract = " Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review. ",

keywords = "gynecologic, measurement properties, patient-reported outcome measurements, PROMS, quality of life",

author = "Moss, {Charlotte L} and Teresa Guerrero-Urbano and Ingrid White and Benjamin Taylor and Rebecca Kristeleit and Ana Montes and Louis Fox and Katharina Beyer and Monika Sztankay and Ratti, {Maria M} and Sisca, {Elena S} and Alexandra Derevianko and Steven MacLennan and Nicholas Wood and Wintner, {Lisa M} and {Van Hemelrijck}, Mieke",

note = "Financial & competing interests disclosure The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.",

year = "2023",

month = may,

day = "2",

doi = "10.2217/fon-2022-0111",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "663--678",

journal = "Future Oncology",

issn = "1479-6694",

publisher = "Future Medicine Ltd.",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers

T2 - a systematic review

AU - Moss, Charlotte L

AU - Guerrero-Urbano, Teresa

AU - White, Ingrid

AU - Taylor, Benjamin

AU - Kristeleit, Rebecca

AU - Montes, Ana

AU - Fox, Louis

AU - Beyer, Katharina

AU - Sztankay, Monika

AU - Ratti, Maria M

AU - Sisca, Elena S

AU - Derevianko, Alexandra

AU - MacLennan, Steven

AU - Wood, Nicholas

AU - Wintner, Lisa M

AU - Van Hemelrijck, Mieke

N1 - Financial & competing interests disclosure The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PY - 2023/5/2

Y1 - 2023/5/2

N2 - Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

AB - Aim: To provide perspective on patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instruments to adopt in patients diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify PROMs developed for or applied in gynecological cancer populations. PROMs identified in more than one study subsequently underwent assessment according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. Results: Overall, 55 PROMs were identified within the gynecological cancer setting, and 20 were assessed according to COSMIN guidelines. Most PROMs had limited information reported, but a best fit approach was adopted to recommend a number of instruments for use in patients with gynecological cancer. Conclusion: Further study to assess the methodological quality of each PROM utilized in gynecological cancers is warranted to endorse the recommendations of this review.

KW - gynecologic

KW - measurement properties

KW - patient-reported outcome measurements

KW - PROMS

KW - quality of life

U2 - 10.2217/fon-2022-0111

DO - 10.2217/fon-2022-0111

M3 - Review article

C2 - 37128990

SN - 1479-6694

VL - 19

SP - 663

EP - 678

JO - Future Oncology

JF - Future Oncology

IS - 9

ER -

Assessing the quality of patient-reported outcome measurements for gynecological cancers: a systematic review

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this