Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16547779›Full record

ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2006

Analyzing oncology clinical trial data using the Q-TWiST method: clinical importance and sources for health state preference data.

Dennis A Revicki, David Feeny, Timothy L Hunt, Bernard F Cole

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. A Framework for the Estimation of Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Using Joint Models of Longitudinal and Survival Data.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Dennis A RevickiCenter for Health Outcomes Research, MEDTAP Institute, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 600, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. Dennis.Revicki@unitedbiosource.com
David Feeny
Timothy L Hunt
Bernard F Cole

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis method is frequently applied to evaluating outcomes in cancer clinical trials, but there is little information on what constitutes a clinically important difference (CID). We reviewed the Q-TWiST, health-related quality of life (HRQL) and utility measurement literature to develop recommendations for CID for the Q-TWiST. We also provide recommendations for measuring health utilities and for the design of Q-TWiST studies.

methodsThe English language literature was searched between 1986 and 2003 for Q-TWiST studies in oncology. We estimated the percent differences between treatments based on median follow-up duration for overall, progression-free and quality-adjusted survival. We also reviewed the relevant HRQL and utility literature on clinical importance.

resultsThe overall differences between treatments for most (56%) of the observed, published values for Q-TWiST analyses ranged between 12% and 19%. Three-fourths of the Q-TWiST studies had gains in survival of 12%-17%, while differences in progression-free survival ranged from 12% to 26%. Studies that have evaluated the clinical importance of changes in HRQL scores suggest that changes of 5%-10% are clinically meaningful, and other research suggests that 0.5 standard deviation is a reasonable threshold for changes in HRQL for chronic diseases. Similarly, one guideline from the health state utility literature is that a 5%-10% difference in standard gamble utility scores is clinically important. Various sources are available for health utilities for Q-TWiST studies and the most valid are derived from patients or the general public, although most studies rely on sensitivity analyses with no collection of utilities.

conclusionsWe recommend that the CID for Q-TWiST is 10% of overall survival in a study, and differences of 15% are clearly clinically important. If less is known about a specific treatment and/or disease area, the CID should be greater than 5% but not more than 10% in planning sample size and statistical power. These CID estimates should be interpreted with caution, pending confirmation in future studies by direct patient assessment of the clinically relevant health states for Q-TWiST.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicNeoplasmsHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.