Skip Navigation


Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on August 4, 2008
Annals of Oncology 2009 20(1):17-25; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdn537
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/1/17    most recent
mdn537v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Minton, O.
Right arrow Articles by Stone, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Minton, O.
Right arrow Articles by Stone, P.
Related Collections
Right arrow 2009 - Review Articles
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

reviews

A systematic review of the scales used for the measurement of cancer-related fatigue (CRF)

O. Minton* and P. Stone

Division of Mental Health, St George's University of London, London, UK

* Correspondence to: Dr O. Minton, Division of Mental Health, 6th Floor Hunter Wing, St Georges University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London SW17 ORE, UK. Tel: +44 02087252620; Fax: +44 02087255358; E-mail: ominton{at}sgul.ac.uk

Background: Fatigue in cancer is very common and can be experienced at all stages of disease and in survivors. There is no accepted definition of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and no agreement on how it should be measured. A number of scales have been developed to quantify the phenomenon of CRF. These vary in the quality of psychometric properties, ease of administration, dimensions of CRF covered and extent of use in studies of cancer patients. This review seeks to identify the available tools for measuring CRF and to make recommendations for ongoing research into CRF.

Methods: A systematic review methodology was used to identify scales that have been validated to measure CRF. The inclusion criteria required the scale to have been validated for use in cancer patients and/or widely used in this population. Scales also had to meet a minimum quality score for inclusion.

Results: The reviewers identified 14 scales that met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly used scales and best validated were the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Fatigue (FACT F), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) (fatigue subscale) and the Fatigue Questionnaire (FQ).

Conclusions: Unidimensional scales are the easiest to administer and have been most widely used. The authors recommend the use of the EORTC QLQ C30 fatigue subscale or the FACT F. The FQ gives a multidimensional assessment and has also been widely used. A substantial minority of the scales identified have not been used extensively or sufficiently validated in cancer patients and cannot be recommended for routine use without further validation.

Key words: cancer-related fatigue, measurement scales, systematic review

Received for publication April 9, 2008. Revision received May 16, 2008. Revision received June 27, 2008. Accepted for publication June 30, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JCOHome page
S. Alexander, O. Minton, and P. C. Stone
Evaluation of Screening Instruments for Cancer-Related Fatigue Syndrome in Breast Cancer Survivors
J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2009; 27(8): 1197 - 1201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.