Consensus in Identification and Stability of Symptom Clusters Using Different Symptom Dimensions in Newly Diagnosed Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Undergoing Induction Therapy

Lin, Dongmei; Yin, Xi-Xi; Wang, Ning; Zheng, Wei; Wen, Yuhua; Meng, Limin; Zhang, Lili

doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.12.329

Cited by 12 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 23 studies included in this review, 10 used a longitudinal design to evaluate for symptom clusters in oncology patients receiving chemotherapy (online supplemental table 2). Six studies were conducted in the USA,45–50 two in Sweden,51 52 one in China,53 and one in South Korea 54. Sample sizes ranged from 5154 to 540 50.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one study evaluated for symptom clusters in a sample of patients with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses 47. Of the nine studies that evaluated for clusters in patients with homogeneous diagnoses, six evaluated patients with breast cancer,45 46 48 50–52 one with acute myelogenous leukaemia,53 one with brain cancer,54 and one with lung cancer 49…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the instruments, seven of the 10 studies used the MSAS 47 49–54. Of these seven studies, three used a modified version of the MSAS 47 49 50.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the statistical methods, eight of the 10 studies used EFA 45–50 53 54. The remaining two studies used PCA 51 52…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the symptom dimension(s), four studies used only the severity dimension 45 46 48 54. While two studies evaluated for clusters using both occurrence and severity,49 50 two used occurrence, severity, and distress 47 53. The remaining two studies created a symptom burden score (ie, the average of the frequency, severity, and distress scores for each symptom on the MSAS) 51 52…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Symptom clusters in patients receiving chemotherapy: A systematic review

Harris

Kober

Conley

et al. 2021

BMJ Support Palliat Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purposeSince 2001, symptom cluster research has grown considerably. However, because multiple methodological considerations remain, ongoing synthesis of the literature is needed to identify gaps in this area of symptom science. This systematic review evaluated the progress in symptom clusters research in adults receiving primary or adjuvant chemotherapy since 2016.MethodsEligible studies were published in English between 1 January 2017 and 17 May 2021; evaluated for and identified symptom clusters ‘de novo;’ and included only adults being treated with primary or adjuvant chemotherapy. Studies were excluded if patients had advanced cancer or were receiving palliative chemotherapy; symptoms were measured after treatment; symptom clusters were pre-specified or a patient-centred analytic approach was used. For each study, symptom instrument(s); statistical methods and symptom dimension(s) used to create the clusters; whether symptoms were allowed to load on more than one factor; method used to assess for stability of symptom clusters and associations with secondary outcomes and biomarkers were extracted.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included. Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale was the most common instrument and exploratory factor analysis was the most common statistical method used to identify symptom clusters. Psychological, gastrointestinal, and nutritional clusters were the most commonly identified clusters. Only the psychological cluster remained relatively stable over time. Only five studies evaluated for secondary outcomes.DiscussionWhile symptom cluster research has evolved, clear criteria to evaluate the stability of symptom clusters and standardised nomenclature for naming clusters are needed. Additional research is needed to evaluate the biological mechanism(s) for symptom clusters.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021240216.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the instruments, seven of the 10 studies used the MSAS 47 49–54. Of these seven studies, three used a modified version of the MSAS 47 49 50.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In terms of the statistical methods, eight of the 10 studies used EFA 45–50 53 54. The remaining two studies used PCA 51 52…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%