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
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
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.