ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2020
Measuring change in health-related quality of life: the impact of different analytical methods on the interpretation of treatment effects in glioma patients.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in interpreting individual-level changes in health-related quality of life in patients with glioma using minimally important differences (MIDs) and a 4-point Likert scale.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Trial
- Symptom burden in young adult brain tumor survivors: Key intervention targets based on patient-reported outcome network analyses.Neuro-oncology practice · 2026Article
- Global health status and fatigue score in isocitrate dehydrogenase-mutant diffuse glioma grades 2 and 3: A longitudinal population-based study from surgery to 12-month follow-up.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Characteristics of health-related quality of life and related factors in patients with brain tumors treated with rehabilitation therapy.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2022Article
- Is the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale appropriate as an initial screening measure to identify brain tumour patients who may possibly have a mood disorder?Psycho-oncology · 2022Article
- Reliability and validity of a novel cognitive self-assessment tool for patients with cancer.Neuro-oncology practice · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent analytical methods may lead to different conclusions about the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to examine 3 different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL and to study whether these methods result in different conclusions.
methodsHRQoL data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined (CODAGLIO project). Change in HRQoL scores, measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and BN20 questionnaires, was analyzed in 3 ways: (1) at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms, (2) at the patient level per scale/item, calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved, or remained stable per scale/item, and (3) at the individual patient level, combining all scales/items.
resultsBaseline and first follow-up HRQoL data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level, only the item "hair loss" showed a significant and clinically relevant change (ie, ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items were statistically significant only (all
conclusionsDifferent analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct conclusions of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for informing clinical decision making.
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.