Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27193118›Full record

ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

Comparison of the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 quality of life questionnaires for patients with colorectal cancer: a literature review.

Vithusha Ganesh, Arnav Agarwal, Marko Popovic, David Cella, Rachel McDonald, Sherlyn Vuong, Henry Lam, Leigha Rowbottom, Stephanie Chan, Tasneem Barakat and 4 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Measuring health-related quality of life in colorectal cancer patients: systematic review of measurement properties of the EORTC QLQ-CR29.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Differences in quality of life between early onset colorectal cancer patients compared to older patients: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Development of mapping algorithms for gastric cancer: translating EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-STO22 to EQ-5D-5L health utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. State of the science of sexual health among older cancer survivors: an integrative review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Prospective longitudinal trajectory of cancer survivorship among patients with recurrent rectal cancer: impact of treatment modalities and resection status.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Body compassion in the context of cancer: A novel exploration among colorectal cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Quality of Life Outcomes in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Vithusha GaneshSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Arnav AgarwalSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marko PopovicSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
David CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Rachel McDonaldSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sherlyn VuongSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Henry LamSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Leigha RowbottomSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Stephanie ChanSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Tasneem BarakatSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Carlo DeAngelisSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael BoreanSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Edward ChowSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. edward.chow@sunnybrook.ca.
Andrew BottomleyEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this review was to compare the development, characteristics, validity, and reliability of three widely used quality of life (QOL) assessment tools used in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Colorectal Cancer Module (QLQ-CR38) and its successor, the QLQ-CR29.

methodsA literature search was conducted using Ovid EMBASE and EMBASE Classic (1996-2015 Week 39), Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE (1996 September Week 4 2015), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to August 2015) to identify studies that discussed the FACT-C, EORTC QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 including, but not limited to, their development, characteristics, validity, and reliability.

resultsThe FACT-C consists of 36 items, presented on a 5-point Likert scale, in four domains of well-being (physical, emotional, social, and functional), and the Colorectal Cancer Subscale (CCS). The physical and social well-being scales showed reasonable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > 60) in all studied populations. The EORTC QLQ-CR38 (38 items) and the QLQ-CR29 (29 items) are implemented in conjunction with the core QLQ-C30 (30 items); all are presented in 4-point Likert scales. Seven scales in the QLQ-CR38 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > 0.70). In the QLQ-CR29, three scales had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of less than 0.70.

conclusionThe FACT-C, QLQ-CR38, and QLQ-CR29 have been extensively validated. However, analysis of their characteristics, validity, and reliability suggest differing suitability in assessing QOL in specific clinical situations.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesColorectal cancerEORTC QLQ-CR29EORTC QLQ-CR38FACT-CQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID27193118

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.