ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
The EORTC QLQ-F17 as a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess self-reported functioning in cancer patients: investigating equivalence and psychometric properties in a randomized cross-over trial.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05479682 (Investigating the Equivalence of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-F17), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Investigating the Equivalence of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-F17
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Measuring quality of life in clinical research - Part 3.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The EORTC QLQ-F17, a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30, solely contains the items related to functioning and omits symptom scales. The QLQ-F17 is conceived an equivalent to the functional part of the QLQ-C30, but to date there is no empirical evidence to support this rationale. Methods: This randomized, cross-over, multi-national, questionnaire-based study investigates the equivalence and psychometric properties of the QLQ-F17 compared to the functional scales of the QLQ-C30. Respondents had to fill in both questionnaires, the order of which was presented in a randomized and balanced manner (QLQ-C30-QLQ-F17 vs. QLQ-F17-QLQ-C30). Equivalence testing used Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and linear models. The margin of equivalence was set at ]-5, 5[ points. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05479682). Patients were enrolled between February 17 and March 28, 2023. Findings: A total of 2672 cancer patients of all major cancer types, aged between 18 and 92 years with an equal gender distribution (50/50) from 11 countries, were recruited between 17 February and 28 March 2023. Adjusted mean differences between QLQ-C30 and QLQ-F17 ranged between -1·55 and 3·25 for all scales, and the limits of the 95%-CIs, ranging from -3·11 to 4·87, were all within the equivalence margin. All effect sizes of the DIF analyses were <0·01. For the scales of the QLQ-F17, Cronbach's Alpha ranged from 0·73 to 0·89, item-own scale correlations from 0·47 to 0·78 and item-other scale correlations from 0·19 to 0·70. Interpretation: The QLQ-F17 yielded score values that are equivalent to the functional part of the QLQ-C30. Consequently, future clinical studies can employ the QLQ-F17 as a generic tool without losing comparability to studies using the QLQ-C30. Supplementing the QLQ-F17 with relevant symptom items from the EORTC Item Library allows for a time-efficient and flexible measurement strategy. Funding: This research was funded by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group, grant number 010/2021.
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.