ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Discrepancies in the country versions of the WHOQOL-BREF as a potential source of error in assessing quality of life and a barrier to comparative research.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to determine whether different language versions of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire allow for obtaining comparable health-related quality of life measurement results across different countries.
methodsWe analysed 21 country versions published on the World Health Organization website. Each version was compared to the reference English questionnaire in terms of its translation, the timeframe of measurement, the inclusion of instructions for respondents, visual layout, and additional elements. To evaluate the accuracy of the questions and scales, selected versions were reviewed by native speakers, and all translations were subsequently reviewed using a large language model.
resultsThe results reveal substantial discrepancies between the versions across all evaluated criteria. In some cases, translation errors were so severe that responses to certain questions could not be meaningfully compared.
conclusionsWe conclude that the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire translations should undergo a comprehensive review to ensure conceptual and structural consistency and comparability. Additionally, language versions developed by external institutions should be carefully vetted by the WHO. The common practice of adding a note that a certain version is not an official WHO translation proves insufficient, as these tools are routinely treated by researchers and clinicians as de facto official instruments.
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.