ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2011
The ability of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across clinical and self-reported measures of cancer severities.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Updating our understanding of health-related quality of life issues in children with cancer: a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative studies.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Trial
- Mapping the FACT-G cancer-specific quality of life instrument to the EQ-5D and SF-6D.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2013Trial
- A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.Health economics review · 2024Article
- Health utility assessments in individuals undergoing diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopy: improved discrimination with a cancer-specific scale.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2024Article
- U-shaped association between body mass index and health-related quality of life impairment in Korean cancer survivors: a nationwide representative cross-sectional survey.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Article
- Generic Health Utility Measures in Exercise Oncology: A Scoping Review and Future Directions.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Responsiveness and construct validity of EPIC-26, AQoL-6D and SF-6D following treatment in prostate cancer.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Construct Validity of the EuroQoL-5 Dimension and the Health Utilities Index in Head and Neck Cancer.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Article
- Current Recommendations for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Assessing Domains of Quality of Life in Neurofibromatosis Clinical Trials.Neurology · 2021Article
- Health related quality of life among Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease patients in India.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients' Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Health-related quality of life and associated factors among cervical cancer patients at Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008-2018) With a Focus on Physical Function: A Scoping Review.Physical therapy · 2020Article
- A Psychosocial Intervention's Impact on Quality of Life in AYAs with Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis from the Promoting Resilience in Stress Management (PRISM) Randomized Controlled Trial.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Cost-effectiveness of lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma who have undergone autologous transplant of hematopoietic progenitor cells.Bone marrow transplantation · 2019Article
- Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
- A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Article
- QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the validity of cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments to discriminate across different measures of cancer severities.
methodsPatients with breast (n = 66), colorectal (n = 57), and lung (n = 61) cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the FACT-G, as well as three generic instruments: the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, and the HUI2/3. Disease severity was quantified using cancer stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) score, and self-reported health status. Comparative analyses confirmed the multi-dimensional conceptualization of the instruments in terms of construct and convergent validity.
resultsIn general, the instruments were able to discriminate across severity measures. The instruments demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with each other (r = 0.37-0.73). Not all of the measures could discriminate between different groups of disease severity: the EQ-5D and SF-6D were less discriminative than the HUI2/3 and the cancer-specific instruments.
conclusionThe cancer-specific and generic preference-based instruments demonstrated to be valid in discriminating across levels of ECOG-PS scores and self-reported health states. However, the usefulness of the generic instruments may be limited if they are not able to detect small changes in health status within cancer patients. This raises concerns regarding the appropriateness of these instruments when comparing different cancer treatments within an economic evaluation framework.
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.