Table 1.

A list of reviews on measurement issue and quality of life in breast cancer patients (2008–2018)

Authors [References]	Year	Main focus	Description/analysis	No. of databases	No. of included studies	Performed QA	Risk of bias assessment	Result(s)
Chen et al. [10]	2010	Patient-reported outcome measures for oncologic breast surgery	Systematic review	8	NA	No	No	Reliable and valid instruments exist, but even the best instruments do not address all important surgery‐specific and psychometric issues
Winters et al. [11]	2010	Treatment recommendations in breast reconstruction based on patient-reported outcome measures and HRQOL	Systematic review	4	34	Yes	No	Sound scientific methodology in HRQOL is undermined by poorly designed and underpowered studies There is a pressing need for further longitudinal studies in breast reconstruction incorporating sensitive and condition-specific patient-report outcome measures; provide adequate sample sizes, and respect established guidelines for rigorous HRQOL methodology
Lemieux et al. [12]	2011	QOL measurement in RCTs	An updated systematic review	PubMed	190	No	No	Reporting of QOL methodology should improve
Reed et al. [13]	2012	QOL assessments in advanced breast cancer	Review	PubMed	51	No	No	There should be more consensuses on which QOL instruments are used
Chopra and Kamal [14]	2012	QOL instruments in long-term BCS	Systematic review	5	19	No	No	The use of validated instruments will not only provide valid data but also help improve the quality of care in long-term BCS
Adamowicz et al. [15]	2012	Assessment of HRQOL parameters as end points in phase III trials in advanced BC	Review	NA	34	No	No	HRQOL evaluation in clinical trials has the potential to predict patient prognosis and serves as a useful tool to assess patients’ experience during cancer therapy
Pusic et al. [16]	2013	Patient-reported outcome instruments and outcomes in breast cancer patients with lymphedema	Systematic review	NA	39	Yes	No	The Upper Limb Lymphedema 27 (ULL-27) was found to have strong psychometric properties. Future studies should strive to use high-quality condition- specific PRO instruments, follow existing guidelines for HRQOL measurement
Niu HY et al. [17]	2014	Validity, reliability and responsiveness of breast cancer-specific HRQL instruments	Review	3	4	Yes	No	The EORTC QLQ-BR23, FACT-B, FACT-ES, and HFRDIS had fairly good psychometric properties to assess HRQOL
Nguyen et al. [18]	2015	Effectiveness of EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B	Review	3	NA	No	No	Both questionnaires were effective in assessing QOL. Decision-making between the questionnaires depends on the study’s purpose and design
Oliveira et al. [19]	2015	The procedures of translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific QOL questionnaires	Systematic review	4	24	Yes	No	Caution should be exercised when using breast cancer-specific QOL questionnaires that have been translated, adapted, and tested
Maratia et al. [20]	2016	Evaluation of available specific and generic breast cancer HRQOL instruments	Systematic review	2	32	Yes	No	The EORTC BR-23, IBCSG, SF-36, and WHO-QOL BREF had good performance, depending on the purpose of the study
Ghislain et al. [21]	2016	HRQOL in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: reporting of methodological and clinical issues in RCTs	Systematic review	PubMed	49	Yes	No	The absence of the HRQOL research hypotheses and the overemphasis on statistical rather than clinical significance was the main problem
Turner-Bowker et al. [22]	2016	Patient-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer clinical trials	Systematic review	3	25	No	No	Patient-reported outcomes may be used to provide a more comprehensive perspective of the benefits and risks from treatment
Krohe et a l [23]	2016	PRO in metastatic breast cancer: a review of industry-sponsored clinical trials	Review	Clinicaltrial.gov	38	No	No	Stakeholders turn more attention to the patient perspective; one would expect PROs to increase as complementary measures to traditional endpoints and become an even more critical part of treatment evaluation
Pe et al. [24]	2018	Patient-reported outcome data in randomized controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer	Review	PubMed	66	No	No	A need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of Patient-reported outcome and quality of life data in cancer RCTs
Liu et al. [25]	2018	BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery	Systematic review	4	54	Yes	No	BREAST-Q can effectively measure patient's satisfaction and HRQOL in relation to different type of breast oncoplastic surgeries. BREAST-Q captured meaningful and reliable information from the patients' perspective and may be useful for clinical decision-making
Tevis et al. [26]	2018	Patient-reported outcomes for breast cancer	Review	Not specified	123	No	No	The implementation of PROs can be complex and challenging and care must be taken to minimize the potential for survey fatigue by patients and the potential financial burden for implementation, maintenance, and analyses of collected data

QA quality appraisal, NA not available, QOL quality of life, HRQO health-related quality of life, PRO patient-reported outcomes, RCTs randomized clinical trials, EORTC QLQ-C30 the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core, FACT-B The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life, EORTC QLQ-BR23 the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core breast cancer, HFRDIS Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, IBCSG the International Breast Cancer Study Group, SF-36 The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, WHO-QOL BREF World Health Organization Quality of Life Instruments, FACT-ES Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale, BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery