Systematic review reveals limitations of studies evaluating health-related quality of life after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer

Abstract

To (1) assess the quality of studies evaluating Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer, and (2) to identify high-quality studies that provide robust HRQL results. A systematic literature search is to identify studies evaluating HRQL with a validated multidimensional patient-reported outcome measure. Study quality focused on study design, risk of bias, HRQL outcome reporting, and additional issues of reporting and methodology. A study was deemed high-quality if criteria for robust study methodology and robust HRQL outcome reporting were met. Six RCTs, 12 cohort studies, 13 case-series, and 31 cross-sectional studies were identified. Overall risk of bias was high. Reporting of HRQL concept (e.g., a priori hypothesis), methodology (e.g., reasons for missing data), and interpretation (e.g., clinical significance) was often absent or unclear. Additional issues of reporting (e.g., unclear treatment descriptions) and methodology (e.g., no control for multiple testing) were identified. Four studies (6%) met the criteria for robust study methodology, and 26 studies (42%) met the criteria for robust HRQL outcome reporting. We identified three high-quality studies (5%)--two RCTs and one case-series--capable of providing robust results. Current evidence is restricted in its ability to inform practice on HRQL after potentially curative treatment for esophageal cancer.