ArticleNeuro-oncology2021
Establishing anchor-based minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in glioma patients.
Article in Neuro-oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-related quality of life in adults with low-grade gliomas: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Pooled it
- The need to consider return to work as a main outcome in patients undergoing surgery for diffuse low-grade glioma: a systematic review.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Pooled it
- 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
- Cancer-specific utility: clinical validation of the EORTC QLU-C10D in patients with glioblastoma.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Trial
- Digital Phenotyping and Noninvasive Quality-of-Life Monitoring in Glioblastoma: Feasibility and Usability Study of the Lalaby-Glio App.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Health-related quality-of-life of WHO grade 4 astrocytoma patients receiving alternating electrical field therapy: a prospective real-world multi-centre study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes and quality of life in glioblastoma patients treated with MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy using a 1.5 T MR-Linac in an Australian setting.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Age and sex as risk factors for health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with glioma: a CODAGLIO 2.0 analysis.The oncologist · 2026Article
- Unraveling assumptions about clinical relevance in patient-reported outcome data : A qualitative study on perspectives of different interest groups.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- The Dual Impact of Glioma Resection on Survival and Health-Related Quality of Life: Resect More, Live Better.Brain tumor research and treatment · 2026Article
- Advancing the role of clinical outcome assessments in neuro-oncology trials.Neuro-oncology practice · 2025Article
- A phase 1 safety and feasibility trial of a ketogenic diet plus standard of care for patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The EORTC QLQ-F17 as a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess self-reported functioning in cancer patients: investigating equivalence and psychometric properties in a randomized cross-over trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Interpretation of clinically meaningful change in cancer palliative care patients' quality of life: minimally important difference for EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Observational
- Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Difference for PROMIS Physical Function Improvement After Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease.Advances in patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Health-related quality of life in 62 patients with diffuse low-grade glioma during a non-therapeutic and progression-free phase: a cross-sectional study.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Article
- Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Brief Fatigue Inventory for brain or CNS cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- Life with a lower-grade glioma: How can neuro-oncologists advance its understanding and management?Neuro-oncology practice · 2024Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimally important differences (MIDs) allow interpretation of the clinical relevance of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results. This study aimed to estimate MIDs for all European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) scales for interpreting group-level results in brain tumor patients.
methodsClinical and HRQOL data from three glioma trials were used. Clinical anchors were selected for each EORTC QLQ-C30 scale, based on correlation (>0.30) and clinical plausibility of association. Changes in both HRQOL and the anchors were calculated, and for each scale and time period, patients were categorized into one of the three clinical change groups: deteriorated by one anchor category, no change, or improved by one anchor category. Mean change method and linear regression were applied to estimate MIDs for interpreting within-group change and between-group differences in change over time, respectively. Distribution-based methods were applied to generate supportive evidence.
resultsA total of 1687 patients were enrolled in the three trials. The retained anchors were performance status and eight Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scales. MIDs for interpreting within-group change ranged from 4 to 12 points for improvement and -4 to -14 points for deterioration. MIDs for between-group difference in change ranged from 4 to 9 for improvement and -4 to -16 for deterioration. Most anchor-based MIDs were closest to the 0.3 SD distribution-based estimates (range: 3-10).
conclusionsMIDs for the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales generally ranged between 4 and 11 points for both within-group mean change and between-group mean difference in change. These results can be used to interpret QLQ-C30 results from glioma trials.
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.