Kenney 2010.
| Methods | Study design: cross‐sectional study (questionnaire survey as part of cohort study) Instrument used to assess fatigue: Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy ‐ Fatigue Validated questionnaire: yes Cut‐off score or criterion for severe fatigue: score < 30 Time points at which outcome data were collected: NA, cross‐sectional study Inclusion criteria: part of the original cohort of CCSS, have survived to age 50 years, speak English, be a US resident, have a confirmed malignant diagnosisa Exclusion criteria: nm |
|
| Participants | Sample characteristics: N of participants original cohort: 1100; N of participants described study group: 55; N of participants study group of interest: 55; N of participants fatigue assessed: 50 Participant characteristics: Tumour type: sarcoma n = 18, NHL n = 10, WT n = 10, HL n = 6, neuroblastoma n = 5, other (ALL,CNS, etc) n = 6 Tumour stage: nm Age at diagnosis: median 8.0 years (range < 1 ‐ 17) Time since diagnosis: median 48 years (range 36 ‐ 65) Age at assessment: median 56 years (range 51 ‐ 71) F/M: 32/23 BMI: nm Race/ethnicity: nm Marital status: married/widowed/living as married n = 40, divorced/separated n = 9, unknown n = 6 Highest completed education level: not a college graduate n = 25, college graduate n = 27, unknown n = 3 Employment: nm Physical activity level: nm Sleeping problems: nm Psychosocial problems: Psychological distress: BSI mean score 34.80 (SD 2.83) Comorbidities: Hypertension n = 26, liver disease n = 6, diabetes n = 5, thyroid disease n = 16, valvular heart disease n = 3, coronary artery disease n = 9, osteoporosis n = 14, renal disease n = 4, arrhythmia n = 5, congestive heart failure n = 2, cerebral vascular disease n = 2, obesity n = 14, mental illness n = 14, lung disease n = 5 Genetic factors/mutations:nm |
|
| Interventions | N of participants chemotherapy: 14 N of participants radiotherapy: 15 N of participants surgery: 4 N of participants chemotherapy + radiotherapy: 22 |
|
| Outcomes | Severe fatigue: N of participants with severe fatigue: 8/50 (16.0%) Risk and associated factors: no analysis performed with fatigue as outcome |
|
| Notes | Funding sources: Supported by the David B. Perini, Jr Quality of Life Clinic at the Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute and the Carl J. Herzog Foundation Declaration of interest: The authors made no disclosures aStudy author confirmed that the study population was in remission at time of enrolment |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Representative study group (selection bias) | High risk | The described study group consisted of < 90% of the original cohort of cancer survivors |
| Adequate follow‐up assessment (attrition bias) | Low risk | Outcome was assessed for 65% ‐ 95% of the study group of interest |
| Blinded outcome assessor (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Outcome assessors were not blinded to the investigated determinant |
| Well‐defined study group (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Type of cancer and cancer treatment are mentioned but information about specific chemotherapeutic agents, radiotherapy fields and doses are not reported. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described |
| Well‐defined follow‐up (reporting bias) | Low risk | Length of follow‐up is mentioned |
| Well‐defined outcome severe fatigue (reporting bias) All outcomes | Low risk | The authors reported which instrument they used to assess fatigue and what they considered to be severe fatigue |