The diagnostic accuracy of single-item scales in detecting fatigue in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 5.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY Critical reviews in oncology/hematology Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104496
Yi-An Lu , Yeu-Hui Chuang , Tsai-Wei Huang , Made Satya Nugraha Gautama
{"title":"The diagnostic accuracy of single-item scales in detecting fatigue in patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Yi-An Lu ,&nbsp;Yeu-Hui Chuang ,&nbsp;Tsai-Wei Huang ,&nbsp;Made Satya Nugraha Gautama","doi":"10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Early detection of fatigue is crucial for cancer patients. Although single-item scales are convenient, their diagnostic accuracy remain unclear, and the variability across studies may affect generalizability. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic value of single-item fatigue detection scales.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR). We also calculated the area under a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Subgroup analyses were performed to address heterogeneity. All analyses were done R (version 4.3.1). The study registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023457658).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eleven studies involving 3509 participants were included. Pooled results revealed a sensitivity of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.82–0.93), specificity of 0.72 (95 % CI: 0.63–0.80), DOR of 19.95 (95 % CI: 10.47–38.04), and an AUC of 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.89–0.91). Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed, influenced by variations in cancer types, study designs, and gold standard references.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Single-item fatigue scales demonstrate commendable diagnostic accuracy, comparable to multidimensional scales. Despite study variability, they are effective for routine clinical use to detect and manage fatigue in cancer patients. Future research should focus on standardizing assessment criteria and optimizing the balance between simplicity and diagnostic precision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":11358,"journal":{"name":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 104496"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical reviews in oncology/hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040842824002397","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Early detection of fatigue is crucial for cancer patients. Although single-item scales are convenient, their diagnostic accuracy remain unclear, and the variability across studies may affect generalizability. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic value of single-item fatigue detection scales.

Methods

We systematically searched CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR). We also calculated the area under a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Subgroup analyses were performed to address heterogeneity. All analyses were done R (version 4.3.1). The study registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023457658).

Results

Eleven studies involving 3509 participants were included. Pooled results revealed a sensitivity of 0.89 (95 % CI: 0.82–0.93), specificity of 0.72 (95 % CI: 0.63–0.80), DOR of 19.95 (95 % CI: 10.47–38.04), and an AUC of 0.90 (95 % CI: 0.89–0.91). Moderate to high heterogeneity was observed, influenced by variations in cancer types, study designs, and gold standard references.

Conclusion

Single-item fatigue scales demonstrate commendable diagnostic accuracy, comparable to multidimensional scales. Despite study variability, they are effective for routine clinical use to detect and manage fatigue in cancer patients. Future research should focus on standardizing assessment criteria and optimizing the balance between simplicity and diagnostic precision.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单项量表在检测癌症患者疲劳方面的诊断准确性:系统回顾与荟萃分析
背景早期发现疲劳对癌症患者至关重要。虽然单项量表很方便,但其诊断准确性仍不明确,而且不同研究之间的差异可能会影响其推广性。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了单项疲劳检测量表的诊断价值。方法我们系统检索了 CINAHL、Cochrane Library、Embase 和 PubMed。我们进行了元分析,以计算汇总的灵敏度、特异性、似然比、预测值和诊断几率比(DOR)。我们还计算了分层汇总接收者操作特征曲线下的面积。我们还针对异质性进行了分组分析。所有分析均采用 R 语言(4.3.1 版)。该研究已在 PROSPERO(CRD42023457658)上注册。结果共纳入七项研究,涉及 3509 名参与者。汇总结果显示,灵敏度为 0.89(95 % CI:0.82-0.93),特异性为 0.72(95 % CI:0.63-0.80),DOR 为 19.95(95 % CI:10.47-38.04),AUC 为 0.90(95 % CI:0.89-0.91)。受癌症类型、研究设计和金标准参照物不同的影响,观察到中度到高度的异质性。尽管研究结果存在差异,但这些量表对于常规临床检测和管理癌症患者的疲劳症状是有效的。未来的研究应重点关注评估标准的标准化以及简易性与诊断准确性之间的最佳平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
3.20%
发文量
213
审稿时长
55 days
期刊介绍: Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology publishes scholarly, critical reviews in all fields of oncology and hematology written by experts from around the world. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology is the Official Journal of the European School of Oncology (ESO) and the International Society of Liquid Biopsy.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Erratum to “Unleashing precision: A review of targeted approaches in pleural mesothelioma” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 203C (2024) 104481] Corrigendum to “The emerging HER2 landscape in Colorectal Cancer: The key to unveil the future treatment algorithm?” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 204 (2024) 104515] Corrigendum to “Navigating the complexity of PI3K/AKT pathway in HER-2 negative breast cancer: Biomarkers and beyond” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 200C (2024) 104404] Corrigendum to “Prevalence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) with antibody-drug conjugates in metastatic breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis” [Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol. 204 (2024) 104527]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1