ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L, SF-6Dv2, and QLU-C10D in hematologic malignancy patients in China.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
- Determining the minimal clinically important difference for EQ-5D-5L scores in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty.BMC geriatrics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the EuroQol five-dimensional five-level (EQ-5D-5L), Short Form Six-Dimensional version 2 (SF-6Dv2), and Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) in Chinese patients with hematologic malignancies.
methodsLongitudinal data were collected from lymphoma and multiple myeloma patients treated at a tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China. Baseline surveys were conducted in 2022, with follow-ups in 2023 at 3- to 6-month intervals. A total of 200 lymphoma and 139 multiple myeloma patients were enrolled, with 78 and 89 patients completing follow-up. HRQoL was assessed by EQ-5D-5L, SF-6Dv2, and EORTC QLQ-C30 (including QLU-C10D) questionnaires. We estimated MCID values using three methods: (1) anchor-based, using changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 total score and clinical indicators (PET-CT or M protein levels) as benchmarks; (2) distribution-based, calculating MCID using half of the baseline standard deviation (SD) and the standard error of measurement (SEM); and (3) instrument-defined, based on average score changes associated with single-level transitions in health states.
resultsAveraging the MCID values from the three calculation methods, the mean values for EQ-5D-5L, SF-6Dv2, and QLU-C10D were 0.070, 0.078, 0.044 for lymphoma patients, and 0.075, 0.087, 0.044 for multiple myeloma patients. The average MCID values from two anchors were 0.064, 0.077, 0.046 (lymphoma patients) and 0.074, 0.091, 0.056 (multiple myeloma patients). The mean distribution-based MCID values, derived from half the SD and the SEM were higher, with the values of 0.086 (EQ-5D-5L), 0.080 (SF-6Dv2), 0.052 (QLU-C10D) for lymphoma patients and 0.097, 0.091, 0.056 for multiple myeloma patients. The lowest mean MCID values, determined using instrument-defined estimates, were 0.061 (EQ-5D-5L) and 0.033 (QLU-C10D) for lymphoma patients, and 0.054 (EQ-5D-5L) and 0.021 (QLU-C10D) for multiple myeloma patients.
conclusionThis study provided the MCID estimates for EQ-5D-5L, SF-6Dv2, and QLU-C10D in Chinese patients with lymphoma and multiple myeloma.
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.