ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020
Assessing quality of life in palliative care settings: head-to-head comparison of four patient-reported outcome measures (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-Pal, FACT-Pal-14, FACT-G7).
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Trial
- A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial of Perioperative Palliative Care Surrounding Cancer Surgery for Patients and Their Family Members (PERIOP-PC).Journal of palliative medicine · 2019Trial
- Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Assessment of the Persian Version of the FACIT-Pal Quality of Life Instrument: A Study Protocol.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Health-related quality of life in palliative care: determinants identified in a hospital-based observational study.BMC palliative care · 2025Observational
- Psychometric properties of the ICECAP-SCM capability-wellbeing measure in specialist palliative care units in Austria.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Efficacy of astragalus polysaccharides (PG2) in alleviating chemotherapy-induced fatigue in gynecologic cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: perspectives for and against a modular approach.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- A Digital Platform (Telepalliation) for Patients in Palliative Care and Their Relatives: Protocol for a Multimethod Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Reliability and Validity of the Tagalog Version of the FACIT-Pal-14 Instrument in Measuring the Quality of Life of Filipino Cancer Patients.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcomes for people with diabetes: what and how to measure? A narrative review.Diabetologia · 2023Review
- Considerations for Pain Assessments in Cancer Patients: A Narrative Review of the Latin American Perspective.Cureus · 2023Review
- Validation of the FACT-G7 in patients with hematologic malignancies.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural translation and adaptation of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Multiple Myeloma tool - MM1 and LEU3 - for Portuguese.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2022Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHead-to-head comparison of reliability, validity and responsiveness of four patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) suitable for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in palliative care settings: EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, FACT-G7, FACIT-Pal and short-form FACIT-Pal-14.
methodsSecondary analysis of two phase III randomised trials: ketamine for chronic cancer pain, octreotide for vomiting in inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Sub-groups were defined by Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status (AKPS) and participants' global impression of change (GIC). Two aspects of reliability were assessed: internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, α); test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)) of patients with stable AKPS and those who self-reported 'no change' on GIC. Construct validity was assessed via pre-determined hypotheses about sensitivity of PROM scores to AKPS groups and responsiveness of PROM change scores to GIC groups using analysis of variance.
resultsFACIT-Pal had better internal consistency (α ranged 0.59-0.80, 15/18 ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (0.51-0.85, 4/8 ≥ 0.70) and FACT-G7 (0.54-0.64, 0/2 ≥ 0.70). FACIT scales had better test-retest reliability (FACIT-Pal 11/27 ICCs ≥ 0.70, FACT-G7 2/3 ICCs ≥ 0.70) than QLQ-C15-PAL (2/30 ICCs ≥ 0.70, 18/30 ≤ 0.5). Four scales demonstrated sensitivity to AKPS: QLQ-PAL-15 Physical Functioning and Global QOL, FACT-G Functional Wellbeing and FACIT-Pal Trial Outcome Index (TOI). Nine scales demonstrated responsiveness: three in the ketamine trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Pain, FACIT-Pal-14, FACT-G7), six in the octreotide trial population (QLQ-C15-PAL Fatigue; FACIT-Pal PalCare, TOI, Total; FACT-G Physical Wellbeing and Total).
conclusionsNo PROM was clearly superior, confirming that choosing the best PROM requires careful consideration of the research goals, patient population and the domains of HRQOL targeted by the intervention being investigated.
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.