ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021
Using a Chinese time trade-off approach to explore the health utility level and quality of life of cancer patients in urban China: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utility Values of Health Status in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review.Value in health regional issues · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Article
- Health utility scores of six common cancers in China measured by SF-6Dv2.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeA quality of life assessment is useful in identifying a specific health impact on patients who are suffering from various medical conditions. This study estimated the quality of life among patients with cancers of the lungs, breast, colorectum, oesophagus, liver, and stomach in urban China and evaluates the associated factors.
methodsThis study employed a random cluster sampling strategy to recruit patients with lung, breast, colorectal, oesophageal, liver, or stomach cancer from eleven third-grade class-A (the highest level) hospitals in Beijing between October 2013 and May 2014. We performed a quality of life survey that included solicitation of sociodemographic and clinical information and the use of a EuroQoL five-dimension three-level questionnaire. We applied the Chinese time trade-off method to calculate the health utility values, which were transformed into binary variables (using the median as the cut-off). In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the factors associated with the quality of life.
resultsA total of 637 patients (91 with lung cancer, 152 with breast cancer, 60 with colorectal cancer, 108 with oesophageal cancer, 154 with liver cancer, and 72 with stomach cancer) were included in this study; the medians of the health utility values were 0.780, 0.800, 0.800, 0.860, 0.800, and 0.870, respectively. The most common concerns for patients of all six cancer types were pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. The reported health status of patients was associated with various demographic and clinical variables.
conclusionThis study highlighted that pain relief and psychological support are important aspects of patient management for those with these types of cancer. Individuals with factors associated with a poorer quality of life should be targets for additional support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32892304What 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.