Psychometric Properties of Quality of Life Questionnaires for Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review

Assessing quality of life (QoL) using a well-developed and validated questionnaire is an essential part of a breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) treatment. However, a QoL questionnaire with the best psychometric properties is so far unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the p...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of environmental research and public health 2022-02, Vol.19 (5), p.2519
Main Authors: Meilani, Estu, Zanudin, Asfarina, Mohd Nordin, Nor Azlin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bias
Breast cancer
Breast Neoplasms - complications
Cancer therapies
Check lists
Female
Humans
Lymph
Lymphedema
Lymphedema - etiology
Medical diagnosis
Patients
Performance evaluation
Psychometrics
Quality assessment
Quality control
Quality of Life
Quantitative psychology
Questionnaires
Reliability analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Skin
Surveys and Questionnaires
Systematic Review
Validation studies
Validity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Assessing quality of life (QoL) using a well-developed and validated questionnaire is an essential part of a breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) treatment. However, a QoL questionnaire with the best psychometric properties is so far unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the questionnaires measuring the QoL of patients with BCRL. A thorough search was performed to identify published studies in electronic databases such as Medline (via Ovid), EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, on 8 February 2022, by using search terms as follows: 'quality of life'; 'breast cancer'; 'upper limb'; 'lymphedema'; 'questionnaire'; and 'measurement properties.' Two reviewers conducted article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment independently. The third reviewer helped solve any possible disagreements between the two reviewers. The COSMIN checklist and manual were used to assess the quality of included studies. A total of nineteen articles with nine questionnaires were included and assessed using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Most studies only assessed content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity. Lymph-ICF-UL showed the most 'sufficient' and 'high' quality of evidence ratings for its measurement properties. The most appropriate questionnaire for use based on our assessment is Lymph-ICF-UL.
ISSN:1660-4601
1661-7827
1660-4601
DOI:10.3390/ijerph19052519