2018
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.27369
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of physical function in children with cancer: A systematic review

Abstract: There is very limited population specific evidence to guide the selection of physical function measures in children with cancer. Further research into the reliability, validity and responsiveness of physical function measures in children with cancer is needed to provide a basis for more effective clinical assessment and management.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
12
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
(113 reference statements)
1
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Few attempts have been done to summarize and describe tests performed and used in this population. Grimshaw et al 12 summarized subjective and objective tools to measure physical function and physical activity in the age group 0–18 years with a focus on the evaluation of measurement properties. Another group of researchers 13 listed evaluation tools used in childhood cancer physical activity/exercise studies or community-based programs that assess motor performance, physical literacy, well-being, quality of life (QoL), and health behavior, but assessments of physical performance and fitness were excluded.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Few attempts have been done to summarize and describe tests performed and used in this population. Grimshaw et al 12 summarized subjective and objective tools to measure physical function and physical activity in the age group 0–18 years with a focus on the evaluation of measurement properties. Another group of researchers 13 listed evaluation tools used in childhood cancer physical activity/exercise studies or community-based programs that assess motor performance, physical literacy, well-being, quality of life (QoL), and health behavior, but assessments of physical performance and fitness were excluded.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Die Einschätzung der Veränderung der körperlichen Leistungsfähigkeit könnte daher möglicherweise verzerrt sein. Der Einsatz objektiver Erhebungsmethoden 29 sollte bei zukünftigen Studien in Betracht gezogen werden, um einen möglichen Beurteiler-Bias zu reduzieren.…”
Section: Diskussionunclassified
“…While some studies used well-defined PROMs to measure PROs, a large proportion of the studies in patients with acromegaly assessed a standardized set of symptoms, without clear definition of a PRO. The use of nondisease-specific or unvalidated PROs has also been observed in other areas, such as diabetes mellitus ( 34 ), and oncology ( 35 ). This is a point of concern, since validation of PROMs is important to ensure their relevance, validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change (ie, responsiveness) ( 36 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%