What type of study is this?

This is a Scoping Review study.

September 10, 2025

A Scoping Review of the Measurement Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Specific to Esophageal Cancer

Key Points

The review identified 14 unique patient-reported outcome measures specific to esophageal cancer, emphasizing gaps in their psychometric quality.
Psychometric quality varied among the studies, with reliability and responsiveness being reported less frequently, potentially limiting clinical applications.
Conducted as a scoping review following Cochrane methods, the analysis screened nearly 5700 studies to focus on esophageal cancer-specific PROMs.
Ensuring high-quality patient-reported outcome measures is essential for improving patient-centered research and clinical decision-making in esophageal cancer care.

Abstract

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMsare essential for evaluating quality of life and treatment outcomes in esophageal cancer. However, the psychometric quality of esophageal cancer-specific PROMshas not been systematically assessed. This study aimed to review the extent to which these PROMsmeet the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines to inform their suitability for clinical and research applications. Methods A scoping review was conducted following Cochrane Rapid Review Methods. A systematic search of MedLine, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and COMET databases was developed with a medical librarian. Studies reporting on the psychometric properties of PROMsdesigned for esophageal cancer were included. Generic cancer PROMsand those for other conditions (e.g., pain, depression, etc.) were excluded. Two independent reviewers conducted screening and data extraction using Covidence, resolving discrepancies by consensus. Results The search yielded 5698 studies, 10 of which were duplicates. The remaining 5688 underwent title and abstract screening. After excluding 5624 irrelevant studies, 64 studies that underwent full-text review, of which 32 were included for data extracting. Preliminary results observed 14 unique PROMs The remaining studies were either translations (n = 9) or refinements (e.g., item reduction or subscale development) (n = 9) of one of the unique PROMs While all studies included validation assessments, psychometric quality varied. Reliability and responsiveness were less frequently reported. Conclusion As PROMsbecome increasingly integrated into esophageal cancer care, their psychometric rigor must be ensured. Many older PROMspredate the COSMIN guidelines and may require re-evaluation to align with modern validation standards. Establishing a standardized, high-quality set of PROMswill improve multi-site collaboration, enhance patient-centered research, and support clinical decision-making.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark