Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34625074›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2021

Investigating the response scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in German cancer patients and a population survey.

Michael Koller, Karolina Müller, Sandra Nolte, Heike Schmidt, Christina Harvey, Ulrike Mölle, Andreas Boehm, Daniel Engeler, Jürg Metzger, Monika Sztankay and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

15 authors.

Michael Koller *Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany. michael.koller@ukr.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5252-6010
Karolina Müller *Center for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, 93042, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5241-2945
Sandra NolteDivision of Psychosomatic Medicine Berlin, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Heike SchmidtInstitute of Health and Nursing Science, Martin Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Christina HarveySt. Marienwörth Hospital, Bad Kreuznach, Germany.
Ulrike MölleDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St. Georg Hospital, Leipzig, Germany.
Andreas BoehmDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, St. Georg Hospital, Leipzig, Germany.
Daniel EngelerDepartment of Urology, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
Jürg MetzgerDepartment of General Surgery, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Luzern, Switzerland.
Monika SztankayDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, and University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck, Austria.
Bernhard HolznerDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical University of Innsbruck, and University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Innsbruck, Austria.
Mogens GroenvoldPalliative Care Research Unit, Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dagmara KuliśQuality of Life Department, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
Andrew BottomleyQuality of Life Department, EORTC Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium.
EORTC Quality of Life Group

Funding

EORTC Quality of Life Group Response scales v3 009 2012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe European Organization for research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) scales are scored on a 4-point response scale, ranging from not at all to very much. Previous studies have shown that the German translation of the response option quite a bit as mäßig violates interval scale assumptions, and that ziemlich is a more appropriate translation. The present studies investigated differences between the two questionnaire versions.

methodsThe first study employed a balanced cross-over design and included 450 patients with different types of cancer from three German-speaking countries. The second study was a representative survey in Germany including 2033 respondents. The main analyses included compared the ziemlich and mäßig version of the questionnaire using analyses of covariance adjusted for sex, age, and health burden.

resultsIn accordance with our hypothesis, the adjusted summary score was lower in the mäßig than in the ziemlich version; Study 1: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.8 to - 1.3), p = 0.006, Study 2: - 3.1 (95% CI - 4.6 to - 1.5), p < 0.001. In both studies, this effect was pronounced in respondents with a higher health burden; Study 1: - 6.8 (95% CI - 12.2 to - 1.4), p = 0.013; Study 2: - 4.5 (95% CI - 7.3 to - 1.7), p = 0.002.

conclusionsWe found subtle but consistent differences between the two questionnaire versions. We recommend to use the optimized response option for the EORTC QLQ-C30 as well as for all other German modules.

trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered on the German Registry for Clinical Studies (reference number DRKS00012759, 04th August 2017, https://www.drks.de/DRKS00012759 ).

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeGermanyHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCognitive processesPatient-reported outcomesQuality-of-lifeResponder behaviourResponse scales

Identifiers

PMID34625074
PMCPMC8501673

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.