Top

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Brain Tumor | Research

Comparison of content and psychometric properties for assessment tools used for brain tumor patients: a scoping review

Authors: Lelde Ģiga, Anete Pētersone, Silva Čakstiņa, Guna Bērziņa

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Aims

To determine the most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors, compare their contents, using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), and their psychometric properties.

Methods

A scoping review was conducted to explore possible assessment instruments and summarize the evidence. A systematic literature search was performed for identification of the frequently used functional assessment tool in clinical trials in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases. The content of most used instruments was linked to the ICF categories. The psychometric qualities of these assessment tools were systematically searched and analyzed.

Results

Nine most used assessment tools in clinical trials were identified. The most frequently used assessment instrument is the Karnofsky Performance Scale, which is developed for a general assessment of oncological patients. Out of four self-assessment tools, two were disease-specific (EORTC QLQ-BN20 and FACT-Br), EORTC QLQ-C30 has been shown good psychometric properties in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various oncological diseases, similar to the SF-36, it is used in patients with brain tumors as well as in patients with various diseases. The Functional Independence Measure and the Barthel Index were two objective assessment tools that described functioning, but two were neuropsychological tests (MMSE and Trial Making Test). Two hundred eighty-three meaningful concepts were identified and linked to 102 most relevant second-level categories covering all components of the ICF. Forty-nine studies reporting psychometric properties of those nine assessment tools were identified, indicating good reliability and validity for all the instruments.

Conclusion

Nine most frequently utilized functional status assessment instruments for patients with brain tumors represent all components of the ICF and have good psychometric properties. However, the choice of the tool depends on the clinical question posed and the aim of its use.

Available only for authorised users

Statistikas dati par onkoloģiskiem pacientiem, 2010–2017. The Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Latvia; 2020.

Koshy M, Villano JL, Dolecek TA, Howard A, Mahmood U, Chmura SJ, et al. Improved survival time trends for glioblastoma using the SEER 17 population-based registries. J Neurooncol. 2012;107(1):207–12.PubMedCrossRef

Kong X, Ma W, Li Y, Wang Y, Guan J, Gao J, et al. Does tenascin have clinical implications in pathological grade of glioma patients?: A systematic meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94(32):e1330.CrossRef

Mukand JA, Blackinton DD, Crincoli MG, Lee JJ, Santos BB. Incidence of neurologic deficits and rehabilitation of patients with brain tumors. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;80(5):346–50.PubMedCrossRef

Bartolo M, Zucchella C, Pace A, Lanzetta G, Vecchione C, Bartolo M, et al. Early rehabilitation after surgery improves functional outcome in inpatients with brain tumours. J Neurooncol. 2012;107(3):537–44.PubMedCrossRef

Huang ME, Cifu DX, Keyser-Marcus L. Functional outcome after brain tumor and acute stroke: a comparative analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(11):1386–90.PubMedCrossRef

Huang ME, Cifu DX, Keyser-Marcus L. Functional outcomes in patients with brain tumor after inpatient rehabilitation: comparison with traumatic brain injury. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;79(4):327–35.PubMedCrossRef

Khan FAB, Rajapaksa I, Ng L. Outcomes of social support programs in brain cancer survivors in an Australian community cohort: a prospective study. J Cancer Res Therapy. 2013;1:24–33.CrossRef

Salomon JAMC, Chatterji S, Sadana R, Üstün TB, Murray JL. Quantifying individual levels of health: definitions, concepts, and measurement issues. In: Murray CJLED, editor. Health systems performance assessment debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. p. 301–18.

10.

Peters MDJGC, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Romataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI manual for evidence synthesis; 2020.

11.

Cieza A, Fayed N, Bickenbach J, Prodinger B. Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(5):574–83.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Cieza A, Geyh S, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Ustun B, Stucki G. ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(4):212–8.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HC. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(8):1115–23.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

14.

M G. Hand book of neurosurgery. 8th edn. New York: Thieme; 2016.

15.

Peus D, Newcomb N, Hofer S. Appraisal of the Karnofsky Performance Status and proposal of a simple algorithmic system for its evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

16.

Terret C, Albrand G, Moncenix G, Droz JP. Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) or Physical Performance Test (PPT)? That is the question. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011;77(2):142–7.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Fayers PAN, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. 3d ed. Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.

18.

Flechl B, Ackerl M, Sax C, Oberndorfer S, Calabek B, Sizoo E, et al. The caregivers’ perspective on the end-of-life phase of glioblastoma patients. J Neurooncol. 2013;112(3):403–11.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Arber A, Faithfull S, Plaskota M, Lucas C, de Vries K. A study of patients with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers: symptoms and access to services. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2010;16(1):24–30.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Karvouni A, Kouri I, Ioannidis JP. Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2009;338:a3006.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

21.

Scoggins JF, Patrick DL. The use of patient-reported outcomes instruments in registered clinical trials: evidence from ClinicalTrials.gov. Contemp Clin Trials. 2009;30(4):289–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

22.

Hopman-Rock M, van Hirtum H, de Vreede P, Freiberger E. Activities of daily living in older community-dwelling persons: a systematic review of psychometric properties of instruments. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019;31(7):917–25.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Laxe S, Tschiesner U, Zasler N, Lopez-Blazquez R, Tormos JM, Bernabeu M. What domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health are covered by the most commonly used measurement instruments in traumatic brain injury research? Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(6):645–50.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Sivan M, O’Connor RJ, Makower S, Levesley M, Bhakta B. Systematic review of outcome measures used in the evaluation of robot-assisted upper limb exercise in stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(3):181–9.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Prodinger B, O’Connor RJ, Stucki G, Tennant A. Establishing score equivalence of the Functional Independence Measure motor scale and the Barthel Index, utilising the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health and Rasch measurement theory. J Rehabil Med. 2017;49(5):416–22.PubMedCrossRef

26.

ICF Research Branch: ICF Research Branch, a cooperation partner within the WHO Collaborating Centre for the Family of International Classifications in Germany (at DIMDI); 2017. https://www.icf-research-branch.org/icf-core-sets

27.

Taphoorn MJ, Claassens L, Aaronson NK, Coens C, Mauer M, Osoba D, et al. An international validation study of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for assessing health-related quality of life and symptoms in brain cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(6):1033–40.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Shin YS, Kim JH. Validation of the Korean version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) in patients with brain tumors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:145.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Khoshnevisan A, Yekaninejad MS, Ardakani SK, Pakpour AH, Mardani A, Aaronson NK. Translation and validation of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for use in Iran. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

30.

Bunevicius A, Tamasauskas S, Tamasauskas A, Deltuva V. Evaluation of health-related quality of life in Lithuanian brain tumor patients using the EORTC brain cancer module. Medicina (Kaunas). 2012;48(11):588–94.

31.

Cheng JX, Liu BL, Zhang X, Zhang YQ, Lin W, Wang R, et al. The validation of the standard Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) in pre-operative patients with brain tumor in China. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:56.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

32.

Arli SK, Gurkan A. Validity and reliability of Turkish version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-brain questionnaire. Cancer Nurs. 2017;40(3):224–9.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Weitzner MA, Meyers CA, Gelke CK, Byrne KS, Cella DF, Levin VA. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale. Development of a brain subscale and revalidation of the general version (FACT-G) in patients with primary brain tumors. Cancer. 1995;75(5):1151–61.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Thavarajah N, Bedard G, Zhang L, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Tsao M, et al. Psychometric validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy–brain (FACT-Br) for assessing quality of life in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer. 2014;22(4):1017–28.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Kontodimopoulos N, Ntinoulis K, Niakas D. Validity of the Greek EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 for measuring health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2011;20(3):354–61.CrossRef

36.

Ozturk A, Sarihan S, Ercan I, Karadag M. Evaluating quality of life and pulmonary function of long-term survivors of non-small cell lung cancer treated with radical or postoperative radiotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32(1):65–72.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Nicklasson M, Bergman B. Validity, reliability and clinical relevance of EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC13 in patients with chest malignancies in a palliative setting. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1019–28.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Stineman MG, Shea JA, Jette A, Tassoni CJ, Ottenbacher KJ, Fiedler R, et al. The Functional Independence Measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(11):1101–8.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Kucukdeveci AA, Yavuzer G, Elhan AH, Sonel B, Tennant A. Adaptation of the functional independence measure for use in Turkey. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(3):311–9.PubMedCrossRef

41.

Pollak N, Rheault W, Stoecker JL. Reliability and validity of the FIM for persons aged 80 years and above from a multilevel continuing care retirement community. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(10):1056–61.PubMedCrossRef

42.

Karamehmetoglu SS, Karacan I, Elbasi N, Demirel G, Koyuncu H, Dosoglu M. The functional independence measure in spinal cord injured patients: comparison of questioning with observational rating. Spinal Cord. 1997;35(1):22–5.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Ottenbacher KJ, Hsu Y, Granger CV, Fiedler RC. The reliability of the functional independence measure: a quantitative review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(12):1226–32.PubMedCrossRef

44.

Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, Deyo RA. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(5):531–6.PubMedCrossRef

45.

Ng YS, Jung H, Tay SS, Bok CW, Chiong Y, Lim PA. Results from a prospective acute inpatient rehabilitation database: clinical characteristics and functional outcomes using the Functional Independence Measure. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2007;36(1):3–10.PubMed

46.

Tur BS, Gursel YK, Yavuzer G, Kucukdeveci A, Arasil T. Rehabilitation outcome of Turkish stroke patients: in a team approach setting. Int J Rehabil Res. 2003;26(4):271–7.PubMed

47.

Hall KM, Bushnik T, Lakisic-Kazazic B, Wright J, Cantagallo A. Assessing traumatic brain injury outcome measures for long-term follow-up of community-based individuals. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82(3):367–74.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Coster WJ, Haley SM, Jette AM. Measuring patient-reported outcomes after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation settings. J Rehabil Med. 2006;38(4):237–42.PubMedCrossRef

49.

Oveisgharan S, Shirani S, Ghorbani A, Soltanzade A, Baghaei A, Hosseini S, et al. Barthel index in a Middle-East country: translation, validity and reliability. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2006;22(5–6):350–4.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989;42(8):703–9.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Roden-Jullig A, Britton M, Gustafsson C, Fugl-Meyer A. Validation of four scales for the acute stage of stroke. J Intern Med. 1994;236(2):125–36.PubMedCrossRef

52.

Nicholl L, Hobart J, Dunwoody L, Cramp F, Lowe-Strong A. Measuring disability in multiple sclerosis: is the Community Dependency Index an improvement on the Barthel Index? Mult Scler. 2004;10(4):447–50.PubMedCrossRef

53.

Rollnik JD. The Early Rehabilitation Barthel Index (ERBI). Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 2011;50(6):408–11.CrossRef

54.

Liu C, McNeil JE, Greenwood R. Rehabilitation outcomes after brain injury: disability measures or goal achievement? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(4):398–404.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Houlden H, Edwards M, McNeil J, Greenwood R. Use of the Barthel Index and the Functional Independence Measure during early inpatient rehabilitation after single incident brain injury. Clin Rehabil. 2006;20(2):153–9.PubMedCrossRef

56.

Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305(6846):160–4.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

57.

Anderson C, Laubscher S, Burns R. Validation of the Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients. Stroke. 1996;27(10):1812–6.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Stull DE, Wasiak R, Kreif N, Raluy M, Colligs A, Seitz C, et al. Validation of the SF-36 in patients with endometriosis. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(1):103–17.PubMedCrossRef

59.

Steffen T, Seney M. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with parkinsonism. Phys Ther. 2008;88(6):733–46.PubMedCrossRef

60.

Dorman P, Slattery J, Farrell B, Dennis M, Sandercock P. Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke. 1998;29(1):63–8.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Guilfoyle MR, Seeley HM, Corteen E, Harkin C, Richards H, Menon DK, et al. Assessing quality of life after traumatic brain injury: examination of the short form 36 health survey. J Neurotrauma. 2010;27(12):2173–81.PubMedCrossRef

62.

Paniak C, Phillips K, Toller-Lobe G, Durand A, Nagy J. Sensitivity of three recent questionnaires to mild traumatic brain injury-related effects. J Head Trauma Rehabil. 1999;14(3):211–9.PubMedCrossRef

63.

Elhan AH, Kutlay S, Kucukdeveci AA, Cotuk C, Ozturk G, Tesio L, et al. Psychometric properties of the Mini-Mental State Examination in patients with acquired brain injury in Turkey. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(5):306–11.PubMedCrossRef

64.

Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–98.PubMedCrossRef

65.

Molloy DW, Standish TI. A guide to the standardized Mini-Mental State Examination. Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9(Suppl 1):87–94.PubMedCrossRef

66.

Toglia J, Fitzgerald KA, O’Dell MW, Mastrogiovanni AR, Lin CD. The Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in persons with mild subacute stroke: relationship to functional outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(5):792–8.PubMedCrossRef

67.

Blake H, McKinney M, Treece K, Lee E, Lincoln NB. An evaluation of screening measures for cognitive impairment after stroke. Age Ageing. 2002;31(6):451–6.PubMedCrossRef

68.

Yates JW, Chalmer B, McKegney FP. Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky performance status. Cancer. 1980;45(8):2220–4.PubMedCrossRef

69.

Grieco A, Long CJ. Investigation of the Karnofsky Performance Status as a measure of quality of life. Health Psychol. 1984;3(2):129–42.PubMedCrossRef

70.

Mor V, Laliberte L, Morris JN, Wiemann M. The Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. An examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer. 1984;53(9):2002–7.PubMedCrossRef

71.

Schag CC, Heinrich RL, Ganz PA. Karnofsky performance status revisited: reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol. 1984;2(3):187–93.PubMedCrossRef

72.

O’Donnell JP, Macgregor LA, Dabrowski JJ, Oestreicher JM, Romero JJ. Construct validity of neuropsychological tests of conceptual and attentional abilities. J Clin Psychol. 1994;50(4):596–600.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Comparison of content and psychometric properties for assessment tools used for brain tumor patients: a scoping review
Authors: Lelde Ģiga
Anete Pētersone
Silva Čakstiņa
Guna Bērziņa
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Brain Tumor
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01863-0

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Comparison of content and psychometric properties for assessment tools used for brain tumor patients: a scoping review

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Factors influencing health behavior practice in patients with coronary artery diseases

Feasibility, reliability and validity of the health-related quality of life instrument Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) among school-aged children and adolescents in Sweden

Health-related quality of life of people living with HIV/AIDS: the role of social inequalities and disease-related factors

Using the Rasch measurement theory to assess the psychometric properties of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-10 in adolescents

Construct validity of the Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale in adult subjects with COVID-19

Role of family functioning and health-related quality of life in pre-school children with dental caries: a cross-sectional study