ArticlePalliative medicine reports2025
Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire for Patients with Multiple Myeloma.
Article in Palliative medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Nutritional vulnerability, food insecurity, and unmet supportive care needs in multiple myeloma: a cross-sectional study from China.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) frequently endure a range of disease-related and treatment-related symptoms that significantly impact their quality of life. The Quality of Life Questionnaire Multiple Myeloma Module 20-item (QLQ-MY20) questionnaire developed by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) was to evaluate the quality of life in patients with myeloma. However, it had not been evaluated in China. This study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-MY20 questionnaire in terms of its reliability, validity, and sensitivity. Methods: The EORTC QLQ-MY20 questionnaire was translated into Chinese and was completed by 140 Chinese patients with MM. The analysis included assessing content validity using the scale-level content validity index, evaluating construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, and calculating reliability statistics. Results: The scale-level content validity index/unanimity was 0.875, and the scale-level content validity index/average was 0.915. Through exploratory factor analysis, the Chinese version of QLQ-MY20 demonstrated a test-retest reliability of 0.857. The Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.887, with the three dimensions having coefficients of 0.879, 0.809, and 0.786, respectively. The Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was 0.927, and the eigenvalues for the three common factors were 10.127, 2.831, and 1.124, respectively. The overall variance contribution rate was 74.112%. Conclusions: The Chinese edition of the EORTC QLQ-MY20 is deemed a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating the quality of life in Chinese patients with MM.
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.