Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34600554›Full record

Trial reportHealth and quality of life outcomes2021

Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy.

Norma B Bulamu, Ravi Vissapragada, Gang Chen, Julie Ratcliffe, Louise A Mudge, B Mark Smithers, Elizabeth A Isenring, Lorelle Smith, Glyn G Jamieson, David I Watson and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  6. Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Extending the EQ-5D: the case for a complementary set of 4 psycho-social dimensions.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

11 authors.

Norma B BulamuFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4822-4858
Ravi VissapragadaFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Gang ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Julie RatcliffeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Louise A MudgeDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
B Mark SmithersUpper GI and Soft Tissue Unit, Academy of Surgery, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Elizabeth A IsenringFaculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Brisbane, Australia.
Lorelle SmithDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.
Glyn G JamiesonDiscipline of Surgery, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
David I WatsonFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. david.watson@flinders.edu.au.
Australian Immunonutrition Study Group

Funding

National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia Competing Project Grant 627110
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study assessed the responsiveness and convergent validity of two preference-based measures; the newly developed cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) relative to the generic three-level version of the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) in evaluating short-term health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes after esophagectomy.

methodsParticipants were enrolled in a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine the impact of preoperative and postoperative immunonutrition versus standard nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer. HRQoL was assessed seven days before and 42 days after esophagectomy. Standardized Response Mean and Effect Size were calculated to assess responsiveness. Ceiling effects for each dimension were calculated as the proportion of the best level responses for that dimension at follow-up/post-operatively. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation and the level of agreement was explored using Bland-Altman plots.

resultsData from 164 respondents (mean age: 63 years, 81% male) were analysed. HRQoL significantly reduced on both measures with large effect sizes (> 0.80), and a greater mean difference (0.29 compared to 0.16) on QLU-C10D. Both measures had ceiling effects (> 15%) on all dimensions at baseline. Following esophagectomy, ceiling effects were observed with self-care (86%), mobility (67%), anxiety/depression (55%) and pain/discomfort (19%) dimensions on EQ-5D-3L. For QLU-C10D ceiling effects were observed with emotional function (53%), physical function (16%), nausea (35%), sleep (31%), bowel problems (21%) and pain (20%). A strong correlation (r = 0.71) was observed between EQ-5D-3L anxiety and QLU-C10D emotional function dimensions. Good agreement (3.7% observations outside the limits of agreement) was observed between the utility scores.

conclusionThe QLU-C10D is comparable to the more widely applied generic EQ-5D-3L, however, QLU-C10D was more sensitive to short-term utility changes following esophagectomy. Cognisant of requirements by policy makers to apply generic utility measures in cost effectiveness studies, the disease-specific QLU-C10D should be used alongside the generic measures like EQ-5D-3L.

trial registrationThe trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12611000178943) on the 15th of February 2011.

Indexed as

EsophagectomyQuality of LifeAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCeiling effectsConvergent validityEQ-5D-3LEsophagectomyHealth related quality of lifeQLU-C10DResponsiveness

Identifiers

PMID34600554
PMCPMC8487554

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.