Document Type

Article

Publication Date

7-2016

Publication Source

Rehabilitation Oncology

Abstract

Background: The medical treatment of prostate cancer results in multiple impairments in body structure and declines functional abilities, resulting in activity limitations and participation restrictions. Measurement of functional mobility is an essential outcome measure in survivorship care.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review is to make recommendations of the best measurement tools to assess functional mobility in men treated for prostate cancer based on psychometric properties and clinical utility.

Methods: Multiple electronic databases were searched from February to March 2014. Studies of tools used to assess functional mobility were included if they met the following criteria: reported psychometric properties, were clinically feasible methods, and were published in the English language. Each outcome measure was reviewed independently and rated by 2 reviewers separately. A single Cancer EDGE (Evaluation Database to Guide Effectiveness) Task Force Outcome Measure Rating Form was completed for each category of functional mobility assessment, and a recommendation was made using the 4-point Cancer EDGE Task Force Rating Scale.

Results: Of the original 38,373 articles found, 87 were included in this review.

Conclusion: Seven tests are highly recommended by the Oncology EDGE Task Force, based on good clinical utility and psychometric properties: 2-Minute Walk Test; 6-Minute Walk Test; 10-Meter Timed Walk; the Timed-Up and Go (TUG); 5 times sit to stand; the Short Performance Physical Battery; and the Physical Performance Battery for Patients with Cancer.

Inclusive pages

82-96

ISBN/ISSN

2168-3808

Document Version

Postprint

Comments

The document made available for download after the publisher's required 12-month embargo period is the authors' accepted manuscript. Some differences may exist between this version and the version of record. Permission documentation is on file.

Publisher

Wolters Kluwer

Volume

34

Issue

3

Peer Reviewed

yes