Validation of the 34-item Supportive Care Needs Survey and 8-item Breast module French versions (SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr) in breast cancer patients.

This study aimed to assess the psychometric robustness of the French version of the Supportive Care Needs Survey and breast cancer (BC) module (SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr). Breast cancer patients were recruited in two hospitals (in Paris, France and Lausanne, Switzerland) either in ambulatory chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or surgery services. They were invited to complete the SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr as well as quality of life and patient satisfaction questionnaires. Three hundred and eighty-four (73% response rate) BC patients returned completed questionnaires. A five-factor model was confirmed for the SCNS-SF34-Fr with adequate goodness-of-fit indexes, although some items evidenced content redundancy, and a one-factor was identified for the SCNS-BR8-Fr. Internal consistency and test-retest estimates were satisfactory for most scales. The SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr scales demonstrated conceptual differences with the quality of life and satisfaction with care scales, highlighting the specific relevance of this assessment. Different levels of needs could be differentiated between groups of BC patients in terms of age and level of education (P < 0.001). The SCNS-SF34-Fr and SCNS-BR8-Fr present adequate psychometric properties despite some redundant items. These questionnaires allow for the crucial endeavour to design appropriate care services according to BC patients' characteristics.

Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien [Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies].

BACKGROUND: Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions daily. These are mainly influenced by personal experience but should also consider patient preferences and the scientific evidence reflected by a constantly increasing number of medical publications and guidelines. With the objective of optimal medical treatment, the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects. It should be considered that there is a high risk of misinterpreting evidence, leading to medical errors and adverse effects without knowledge of the methodological background. OBJECTIVES: This article explains the concept of systematic error (bias) and its importance. Causes and effects as well as methods to minimize bias are discussed. This information should impart a deeper understanding, leading to a better assessment of studies and implementation of its recommendations in daily medical practice. CONCLUSION: Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias (RoB) tool is an assessment instrument for the potential of bias in controlled trials. Good handling, short processing time, high transparency of judgements and a graphical presentation of findings that is easily comprehensible are among its strengths. Attached to this article the German translation of the RoB tool is published. This should facilitate the applicability for non-experts and moreover, support evidence-based medical decision-making.