Application of Assessment Scales in Palliative Care for Glioma: A Systematic Review.

Q2 Medicine
Zhi-Yuan Xiao, Tian-Rui Yang, Ya-Ning Cao, Wen-Lin Chen, Jun-Lin Li, Ting-Yu Liang, Ya-Ning Wang, Yue-Kun Wang, Xiao-Peng Guo, Yi Zhang, Yu Wang, Xiao-Hong Ning, Wen-Bin Ma
{"title":"Application of Assessment Scales in Palliative Care for Glioma: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Zhi-Yuan Xiao, Tian-Rui Yang, Ya-Ning Cao, Wen-Lin Chen, Jun-Lin Li, Ting-Yu Liang, Ya-Ning Wang, Yue-Kun Wang, Xiao-Peng Guo, Yi Zhang, Yu Wang, Xiao-Hong Ning, Wen-Bin Ma","doi":"10.24920/004416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>: Patients with glioma experience a high symptom burden and have diverse palliative care needs. However, the assessment scales used in palliative care remain non-standardized and highly heterogeneous. To evaluate the application patterns of the current scales used in palliative care for glioma, we aim to identify gaps and assess the need for disease-specific scales in glioma palliative care. <b>BACKGROUND AND METHODS</b>: We conducted a systematic search of five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL for quantitative studies that reported scale-based assessments in glioma palliative care. We extracted data on scale characteristics, domains, frequency, and psychometric properties. Quality assessments were performed using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. <b>RESULTS</b>: Of the 3,405 records initially identified, 72 studies were included. These studies contained 75 distinct scales that were used 193 times. Mood (21.7%), quality of life (24.4%), and supportive care needs (5.2%) assessments were the most frequently assessed items, exceeding half of all scale applications. Among the various assessment dimensions, the Distress Thermometer (DT) was the most frequently used tool for assessing mood, while the Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) was the most frequently used tool for assessing quality of life. The Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was the most common tool for cognitive assessment. Performance status (5.2%) and social support (6.8%) were underrepresented. Only three brain tumor-specific scales were identified. Caregiver-focused scales were limited and predominantly burden-oriented. <b>CONCLUSIONS</b>: There are significant heterogeneity, domain imbalances, and validation gaps in the current use of assessment scales for patients with glioma receiving palliative care. The scale selected for use should be comprehensive and user-friendly.</p>","PeriodicalId":35615,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Medical Sciences Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24920/004416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Patients with glioma experience a high symptom burden and have diverse palliative care needs. However, the assessment scales used in palliative care remain non-standardized and highly heterogeneous. To evaluate the application patterns of the current scales used in palliative care for glioma, we aim to identify gaps and assess the need for disease-specific scales in glioma palliative care. BACKGROUND AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, and CINAHL for quantitative studies that reported scale-based assessments in glioma palliative care. We extracted data on scale characteristics, domains, frequency, and psychometric properties. Quality assessments were performed using the Cochrane ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. RESULTS: Of the 3,405 records initially identified, 72 studies were included. These studies contained 75 distinct scales that were used 193 times. Mood (21.7%), quality of life (24.4%), and supportive care needs (5.2%) assessments were the most frequently assessed items, exceeding half of all scale applications. Among the various assessment dimensions, the Distress Thermometer (DT) was the most frequently used tool for assessing mood, while the Short Form-36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36) was the most frequently used tool for assessing quality of life. The Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) was the most common tool for cognitive assessment. Performance status (5.2%) and social support (6.8%) were underrepresented. Only three brain tumor-specific scales were identified. Caregiver-focused scales were limited and predominantly burden-oriented. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant heterogeneity, domain imbalances, and validation gaps in the current use of assessment scales for patients with glioma receiving palliative care. The scale selected for use should be comprehensive and user-friendly.

评估量表在胶质瘤姑息治疗中的应用:系统综述。
目的:胶质瘤患者经历高症状负担,并有不同的姑息治疗需求。然而,在姑息治疗中使用的评估量表仍然是非标准化和高度异质性的。为了评估目前在胶质瘤姑息治疗中使用的量表的应用模式,我们旨在确定差距并评估胶质瘤姑息治疗中疾病特异性量表的需求。背景和方法:我们对PubMed、Web of Science、Medline、EMBASE和CINAHL等5个数据库进行了系统检索,以获得关于胶质瘤姑息治疗中基于量表评估的定量研究。我们提取了有关尺度特征、域、频率和心理测量特性的数据。使用Cochrane ROB 2.0和ROBINS-I工具进行质量评估。结果:在最初确定的3405份记录中,纳入了72项研究。这些研究包含75种不同的量表,使用了193次。情绪(21.7%)、生活质量(24.4%)和支持性护理需求(5.2%)评估是最常见的评估项目,超过了所有量表应用的一半。在各种评估维度中,焦虑温度计(DT)是最常用的评估情绪的工具,而SF-36健康调查问卷(SF-36)是最常用的评估生活质量的工具。迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)是最常用的认知评估工具。表现状态(5.2%)和社会支持(6.8%)的代表性不足。仅确定了三种脑肿瘤特异性量表。以照顾者为中心的量表有限,主要以负担为导向。结论:目前对接受姑息治疗的胶质瘤患者使用的评估量表存在显著的异质性、域不平衡和验证空白。选择使用的比例尺应全面、方便使用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Chinese Medical Sciences Journal
Chinese Medical Sciences Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1275
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信