Article Text
Abstract
Background Worldwide, bladder cancer (BC) has been regarded as the tenth most common cancer with more than 573 000 new cases in 2020. This research presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the quality of life (QOL) among patients with BC.
Methods The study was designed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 11 articles were extracted from a literature search conducted through electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from the onset of January 2000 to June 2022. A random-effects model was applied to estimate the pooled QOL in patients with BC.
Results We included 11 primary studies in the final meta-analysis. Based on random effect analysis, total score of QOL was 53.92 (95% CI: 47.84 to 60) representing a moderate level of QOL among patients. Based on the analysis, it was found that physical items with a score of 49.82 (95% CI: 45.8 to 53.84) had a lower score in comparison with mental items at a score of 52 (95% CI: 49.54 to 54.47). In addition, the item of role limitations due to physical health with a score of 46.26 (95% CI: 20.11 to 72.41), and social functioning with a score of 46.25 (95% CI: 18.85 to 73.66), respectively, had the lowest QOL in patients with BC.
Conclusion Generally, the QOL among patients with BC was in a moderate condition, which can be improved through determining the influencing factors on QOL as a crucial strategy to define future treatment procedures in an effective manner.
- quality of life
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors Conception and design of study: GKheradkhah and AG. Acquisition of data: GKotronoulas. Analysis and/or interpretation of data: GKheradkhah and AG. Drafting the manuscript: AG and GKotronoulas. Revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content: AG. Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published: AG and SR.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.