Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34542736›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2021

Validation and reliability of the Dutch version of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 Questionnaire Module for patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

Theodora M Ripping, Ellen Westhoff, Neil K Aaronson, Mieke Van Hemelrijck, Elke Rammant, J Alfred Witjes, Lambertus A Kiemeney, Katja K H Aben, Alina Vrieling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Theodora M RippingNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ellen WesthoffDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Neil K AaronsonDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mieke Van HemelrijckFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Translational Oncology and Urology Research (TOUR), King's College London, London, UK.
Elke RammantDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
J Alfred WitjesDepartment of Urology, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lambertus A KiemeneyDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Katja K H AbenNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Alina VrielingDepartment for Health Evidence, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Alina.Vrieling@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8178-2125

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 11179KWF Kankerbestrijding IKNL 2015-7914KWF Kankerbestrijding KUN 2013-5926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (QLQ-NMIBC24) has been available and applied for some years now, but has yet to undergo a full comprehensive psychometric evaluation. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the EORTC QLQ-NMIBC24 questionnaire in patients with low, intermediate and high risk NMIBC.

methodsWe included patients newly diagnosed with NMIBC participating in the multicenter, population-based prospective cohort studies UroLife or BlaZIB. Psychometric evaluation included examination of the structural validity, reliability (i.e. internal consistency and test-retest reliability), construct validity (i.e. divergent validity and known-groups validity), responsiveness and interpretability.

resultsA total of 1463 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire of UroLife (n = 541, response rate 50%) or BlaZIB (n = 922, response rate 58%) were included. The percentage of missing responses were low for all non-sex related scales (< 1%) and ranged between 6.9% to 50.0% for sex-related scales. More than 15% of the patients obtained the lowest possible scores on nearly each scale (floor effect). The structural validity was adequate; the confirmatory factor analysis showed satisfactory results and all items of multiple items scales had higher within- than between-scale correlations. Reliability of the questionnaire was adequate for most multiple item scales (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.70 and intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.70), with exception of the scales 'malaise' and 'bloating and flatulence'. The questionnaire also showed good construct validity; it showed low correlations with the items of the EORTC core questionnaire and was able to measure differences between risk-based subgroups. The responsiveness of the questionnaire was good, but the interpretability, i.e. minimal important change, could not be determined.

conclusionsThis study shows that the measurement properties of the EORTC QLQL-NMIBC24 are good; it has a good structural validity, reliability (i.e. internal consistency and test-retest reliability), construct validity (i.e. divergent validity and known-group validity), and responsiveness. Interpretability could not be assessed. This questionnaire can be used to measure and monitor health-related quality of life of patients with NMIBC.

Indexed as

Bladder cancerEORTC questionnaireQuality of lifeValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID34542736
PMCPMC8452806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.