ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Establishing Minimal Clinically Important Differences for the Quality of Life Instrument in Patients With Breast Cancer QLICP-BR (V2.0) Based on Anchor-Based and Distribution-Based Methods.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of myofascial release in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema: a cross-over randomized controlled trial.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Trial
- Exploring multiple minimal clinically important differences for the esophageal cancer scale QLICP-ES (V2.0) based on anchor-based and distribution-based methods.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Breast-cancer specific comprehensive archive of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for clinical research and clinical practice in oncology: Results from the PRO4All project.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2024Article
- Development and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis scale among the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-RA (V2.0).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors in patients with breast cancer based on the scale QLICP-BR.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Establishing minimal clinically important differences for the Quality of Life Instrument of Chronic Gastritis QLICD-CG(V2.0) based on distribution-based methods.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Exploration of the methods of establishing the minimum clinical important difference based on anchors and their applications in the quality of life measurement scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) for breast cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Minimal clinically important difference for the Mandarin version of the Tinnitus Questionnaire determined via anchor-based and distribution-based methods.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the breast cancer scale QLICP-BR (V2.0) among the Quality of Life Instruments system for cancer patients (QLICP), which consist of the general module of 32 items classifying into 4 domains and the specific module of 10 items. Methods: According to the scoring rule of QLICP-BR (V2.0), the scores of each domain and the overall scale were calculated. The MCIDs of this scale were established by anchor-based and distribution-based methods. The anchor method used the Q29 item in the EORTC QLQ-C30 scale as anchors and defined the treatment effectiveness of the anchor-based method using criteria A (one level improvement after treatment) and B (at least one level improvement after treatment), while methods of effect size (ES), standard error of measurement (SEM), and reliability change index (RCI) were used in distribution-based methods. Results: Using the anchor-based method, according to standard A, the MCIDs of the physical domain (PHD), psychological domain (PSD), social domain (SOD), common symptoms and side effect domain (SSD), core/general module (CGD), specific domain (SPD), and the total score (TOT) were 16.24, 11.37, 11.31, 12.07, 11.49, 10.69, and 11.23 respectively; according to standard B, the MCIDs of PHD, PSD, SOD, SSD, CGD, SPD, and TOT were 18.88, 15.14, 14.10, 14.50, 13.93, 12.17, and 14.23 respectively. In the distribution-based MCID study, when ES = 0.8, the MCID values of each domain and the total score of the scale were 9.14, 10.34, 8.34, 10.54, 6.79, 9.73, and 6.96 respectively. The MCIDs calculated when a SEM of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 8.38, 11.04, 8.67, 10.00, 7.44, 9.83, and 7.81. The MCIDs calculated when a RCI of 1.96 was used as the intermediary index were 11.84, 15.61, 12.27, 14.14, 10.52, 13.90, and 11.05. Additionally, the MCID value calculated by the two standards of the anchor method was similar to 0.8 ES, 1.96 SEM, and 1.96 RCI. Conclusion: Using the anchor-based method, 0.8ES, 1.96SEM, and 1.96RCI have a better effect on the minimal clinically important difference of breast cancer scale and were recommended to be the preferred methods for establishing MCID.
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.