4.6 Review

The association between health related quality of life and survival in patients with head and neck cancer: A systematic review

期刊

ORAL ONCOLOGY
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.09.002

关键词

Head and neck neoplasm; Health-related quality of life; Survival; Quality assessment; Systematic review; Best evidence synthesis

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society/Alpe d'HuZes Fund
  2. Netherlands Quality of Life and Biomedical Cohort Studies in Cancer
  3. Bas Mulder

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to systematically review available evidence on the association between health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and survival in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), adjusted for important clinical, demographic and lifestyle-related factors. A systematic literature search in four electronic bibliographic databases was conducted in January 2014. We included studies that provided data on HRQoL, survival, and the association between HRQoL and survival among HNC patients. Two researchers independently rated the quality of the included studies. A best evidence synthesis was applied to draw conclusions. Nineteen studies were included, of which twelve focused on all subscales of a HRQoL questionnaire and seven focused on selected subscales. The mean (SD) quality score was 72 (17)% and 11 (58)% studies were of high quality. According to the best evidence synthesis, we found strong evidence for a positive association between pre-treatment physical functioning and survival and between change in global QoL from pre-treatment to 6 months after treatment and survival. Due to inconsistent findings, we found insufficient evidence for an association with survival of other HRQoL domains, including role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning, mental health and well-being. Future high quality studies with a longitudinal design are needed to examine the complex association between HRQoL and survival. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据