ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019
Mapping function from FACT-B to EQ-5D-5 L using multiple modelling approaches: data from breast cancer patients in China.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of health state utility values measured by EuroQol 5-dimensions (EQ5D) questionnaire in Chinese women with breast cancer.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Development of algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D-5L from the FACT-L in patients with lung cancer: a mapping study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Mapping study of papillary thyroid carcinoma in China: Predicting EQ-5D-5L utility values from FACT-H&N.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Vulnerable populations during COVID-19 response: Health-related quality of life among Chinese population and its influence due to socio-demographic factors and loneliness.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS social function short forms in Chinese patients with breast cancer.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of different surgical treatment approaches for early breast cancer: a retrospective matched cohort study from China.BMC cancer · 2021Article
- Mapping the cancer-specific FACT-B onto the generic SF-6Dv2.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G onto EQ-5D-5L index for patients with cancer.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- Mapping the Chinese Version of the EORTC QLQ-BR53 Onto the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D Utility Scores.The patient · 2020Article
- Quality of Life Indicators in Patients Operated on for Breast Cancer in Relation to the Type of Surgery-A Retrospective Cohort Study of Women in Serbia.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) is the most commonly used scale for assessing quality of life in patients with breast cancer. The lack of preference-based measures limits the cost-utility of breast cancer in China. The goal of this study was to explore whether a mapping function can be established from the FACT-B to the EQ-5D-5 L when the EQ-5D health-utility index is not available.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of adults with breast cancer was conducted in China. All patients included in the study completed the EQ-5D-5 L and the disease-specific FACT-B questionnaire, and demographic and clinical data were also collected. The Chinese tariff value was used to calculate the EQ-5D-5 L utility scores. Five models were evaluated using three different modelling approaches: the ordinary least squares (OLS) model, the Tobit model and the two-part model (TPM). Total scores, domain scores, squared terms and interaction terms were introduced into models. The goodness of fit, signs of the estimated coefficients, and normality of prediction errors of the model were also assessed. The normality of the prediction error is determined by calculating the root mean squared error (RMSE), the mean absolute deviation (MAD), and the mean absolute error (MAE). Akaike information criteria (AIC) and Bayes information criteria (BIC) were also used to assess models and predictive performances. The OLS model was followed by simple linear equating to avoid regression to the mean.
resultsThe performance of the models was improved after the introduction of the squared terms and the interaction terms. The OLS model, including the squared terms and the interaction terms, performed best for mapping the EQ-5D-5 L. The explanatory power of the OLS model was 70.0%. The AIC and BIC of this model were the smallest (AIC = -705.106, BIC = -643.601). The RMSE, MAD and MAE of the OLS model, Tobit model and TPM were similar. The MAE values of the 5-fold cross-validation of the multiple models in this study were 0.07155~0.08509; meanwhile, the MAE of the TPM was the smallest, followed by that of the OLS model. The OLS regression proved to be the most accurate for the mean, and linearly equated scores were much closer to observed scores.
conclusionsThis study establishes a mapping algorithm based on the Chinese population to estimate the EQ-5D-5 L index of the FACT-B and confirms that OLS models have higher explanatory power and that TPMs have lower prediction error. Given the accuracy of the mean prediction and the simplicity of the model, we recommend using the OLS model. The algorithm can be used to calculate EQ-5D scores when EQ-5D data are not directly collected in a study.
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.