ArticlePatient preference and adherence2021
Determining the Minimal Important Difference for the Wound-QoL Questionnaire.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Vacuum Compression Therapy on Healing of Chronic Lower Limb Ulcers: A Randomised Controlled Study.International wound journal · 2026Trial
- From Data to Clinical Decisions in Chronic Wound Care: Evaluation of the Interpretability, Minimal Important Difference, and Smallest Detectable Change of the Wound-QoL-14 in a Spanish Population.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes and Wound-Related Quality of Life in Adults with Diabetic Foot Ulcers Treated with Silicone Superabsorbent Polymer Dressings: Exploratory Results from a Prospective Multicenter Nonrandomized Cohort Study.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Article
- Patient-reported outcomes in venous leg ulcers: results from a prospective multicenter single-arm cohort study of silicone superabsorbent polymer dressings.Patient related outcome measures · 2026Article
- Autologous cutis and subcutis micrografts combined with a collagen-elastin dermal scaffold for chronic wounds: a retrospective single-arm clinical study with prospectively collected data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- How to Interpret Quality of Life Assessment of Patients With Chronic Wounds Using the Wound-QoL.International wound journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe questionnaire for the quality of life with chronic wounds (Wound-QoL) is a valid and reliable instrument to determine the disease-specific health-related QoL of patients with chronic wounds. For the interpretation of HRQoL scores, it is additionally important to know which differences in scores are considered meaningful. The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as a change in HRQoL that a patient would consider meaningful, such that the patient would judge a treatment to be beneficial and worthy of repeating.
objectiveTo interpret changes in the Wound-QoL scores and draw conclusions regarding the relevance of detected changes; the purpose of this study was to estimate the MID of the Wound-QoL global score and its subscales for patients with chronic wounds. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients completed the Wound-QoL before and four to six weeks after treatment and additionally gave a global rating of wound status change after treatment. The global rating of change served as an anchor question. MIDs were calculated based on an anchor-based and a distribution-based method.
resultsIn total, 227 patients participated in the study. The mean age of the study population was 66.9 (± 12.7) median was 69.5, and 51.5% of the patients were female. MIDs for the Wound-QoL global score ranged from 0.47 to 0.52, proposing an overall estimation of 0.50.
conclusionThe results can be used to measure and interpret changes in wound-specific QoL over time.
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.