ArticleHealth economics review2024
A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances.
Article in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the health utility values of patients with six common cancers in China using the QLU-C10D: A cross-sectional survey.iScience · 2026Article
- Quality of life utility-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) scores based on cancer patients' health preferences are more sensitive than those based on general public's health preferences.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Developing a patient-based utility value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D using the OPUF method in Chinese cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Validation of the Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Measure EORTC QLU-C10D against the Generic Instruments EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in a Prospectively Collected Sample of Patients with Cancer in Austria and France.PharmacoEconomics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a comparison of the measurement properties of two cancer-specific Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs), EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D, in Chinese patients with hematologic malignancies (HM).
methodsWe conducted a longitudinal study on patients with HM in China, using QLU-C10D and FACT-8D at baseline and follow-up (3-4 months from baseline). We assessed: (i) convergent validity using Spearman's rank correlation test (r) with EQ-5D-5L; (ii) clinical-groups validity by differentiating cancer stages, overall health assessment (OHA), Eastern Cancer Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and mental health status. We also examined clinical validity with effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE); (iii) responsiveness to changes in patient self-perception using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and area under the curves (AUC); and (iv) agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and visualized with Bland-Altman plot.
resultsAmong the 308 patients with HM at baseline, 131 completed the follow-up survey. Agreement between the two measures was high (ICC = 0.76). Both measures were highly correlated with EQ-5D-5 L and significantly differentiated (p < 0.001) among groups categorized by cancer stage, OHA performance status, and mental health. ESs for QLU-C10D were numerically higher for cancer stage, OHA, and performance status (ES = 0.53-1.49), whereas ES was higher for FACT-8D and mental health status (ES = 1.35). Responsiveness was higher for QLU-C10D (AUC = 0.84) compared to FACT-8D (AUC = 0.78).
conclusionBoth QLU-C10D and FACT-8D are valid cancer-specific MAUIs for evaluating patients with HM. However, scholars should consider their slight differences in focus when choosing between the two measures.
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.