ArticleBMC cancer2025
Assessing the performance of QLQ-C30 in predicting all-cause mortality in community cancer patients.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the ability of QLQ-C30 in predicting mortality in community-based cancer patients in China.
methodsA whole-cluster sampling method was adopted to enroll cancer patients in four communities in Shanghai from 2018 to 2019. The patients were surveyed using a questionnaire enquiring demographic information, cancer types, and QLQ-C30 scale. Death information of participants was collected and updated from community health care centers. Cox regression models were used to assess the relationship between various QLQ-C30 scores (i.e., total score, five dimension scores, and utility score) and all-cause mortality.
resultsA total of 3,304 participants were enrolled with a mean age of 63.9 years. Among them, 2,710 patients survived while 594 died by 2023. The mean total QLQ-C30 score in living patients was statistically significantly higher than that in deceased patients ( 92.96 vs. 85.21, p < 0.001); and the mean values of the five dimension scores and utility score were also significantly higher for the living patients. Cox regression models with the adjustment of covariates also confirmed that higher QLQ-C30 scores were associated with lower risk of death, with the hazard ratio value being 0.81 for the total score, 0.83-0.89 for the dimension scores, and 0.83 for the utility score, respectively (p < 0.001 for all).
conclusionsQLQ-C30 could accurately predict all-cause mortality in Chinese community cancer patients.
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.