ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of the SF-6Dv2 and comparing its validity to the EQ-5D-5L among colorectal cancer patients in China.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cocreation, Implementation, and Evaluation of Two Digital Innovations to Improve Home Adaptation for Older Adults: Protocol for an Action Research Pilot Study.JMIR research protocols · 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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and responsiveness of the SF-6Dv2, and to provide the first comparative assessment of its validity against the EQ-5D-5L in Chinese patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between August 2022 and December 2023 in three tertiary hospitals in Harbin, China. Eligible CRC patients completed face-to-face baseline interviews to collect demographics, health behaviors, clinical characteristics, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6Dv2. Follow-up surveys were administered at 7 days and 3 months to collect self-reported health changes and SF-6Dv2. Ceiling and floor effects were assessed by calculating the proportion of respondents reporting the best and worst possible health states. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman's correlation with EQ-5D-5L as the reference. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing utility scores across groups categorized by health behaviors and clinical characteristics, testing effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE). Agreement was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Test-retest reliability of SF-6Dv2 utility and dimension scores was evaluated using ICC and Gwet's AC over 7 days. Responsiveness was assessed using standardized response mean (SRM) over 4 months. Results: Baseline included 287 CRC patients; 131 and 111 completed first and second follow-ups. A higher ceiling effect was observed in EQ-5D-5L than in SF-6Dv2 (16.7% vs 3.1%). The Spearman correlation between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utility scores was 0.716 (dimensions: 0.313-0.675). Utility scores from EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 showed moderate agreement (ICC = 0.686). SF-6Dv2 showed superior known-groups validity in surgical treatment (RE = 1.796) and ECOG groups (RE = 1.953). SF-6Dv2 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for utility scores (ICC = 0.866), with Gwet's AC across dimensions (0.322-0.669). SF-6Dv2 showed greater responsiveness in the worsened group (SRM = 0.788) compared to the improved group (SRM = 0.687). Conclusions: SF-6Dv2 showed comparable reliability and responsiveness when used in patients with CRC, out-performing EQ-5D-5L in differentiating clinical known-groups and showing promise for cancer practice and research.
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.