ArticleBritish journal of cancer2005
Validation of the English and Chinese versions of the Quick-FLIC quality of life questionnaire.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Barretos short instrument for assessment of quality of life (BSIqol): development and preliminary validation in a cohort of cancer patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2012Article
- Development and validation of the Chinese version of the Multicultural Quality of Life Index (MQLI-Ch).Culture, medicine and psychiatry · 2008Article
- Quick assessment of hopelessness: a cross-sectional study.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2006Article
- Validation of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool in Patients with Advanced Cancer.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A useful measure of quality of life should be easy and quick to complete. Recently, we reported the development and validation of a shortened Chinese version of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC), which we called the Quick-FLIC. In the present study of 327 English-speaking and 221 Chinese-speaking cancer patients, we validated the English version of the Quick-FLIC and further assessed the Chinese version. The 11 Quick-FLIC items were administered alongside the 11 remaining items of the full FLIC, but there appeared to be little context effect. Validity of the English version of the Quick-FLIC was attested by its strong correlation with two other measures of quality of life, and its ability to detect differences between patients with different performance status and treatment status (each P<0.001). Its internal consistency (alpha=0.86) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation=0.76) were also satisfactory. The measure was responsive to changes in performance status (P<0.001). The Chinese version showed similar characteristics. The Quick-FLIC behaved in ways that are highly comparable with the FLIC, even though the Quick-FLIC comprised only 11 items whereas the FLIC comprised 22. Further research is required to see whether the use of shorter instruments can improve data quality and response rates, but the fact that shorter instruments place less burden on the patients is itself inherently important.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.