ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
International validation of the Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer-Quality of Life (LRRC-QoL) patient reported outcome measure.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 4-8% of patients following previous curative treatment. However, it has a significant impact on patients' clinical status and health-related quality of life (HrQoL). International collaboration has positively impacted clinical outcome reporting in this setting, however, has not extended to patient-reported outcomes such as HrQoL. Establishing an international measure of HrQoL for patients with LRRC is central to understanding its impact from a patient perspective. The LRRC-QoL measure of HrQoL in LRRC was developed and validated for use in the UK and Australia. The aim of this study was to externally validate the LRRC-QoL as an international measure of HrQoL in LRRC. Methods: Patients with LRRC undergoing treatment with both curative and palliative intent were recruited between 05/11/2020 and 04/12/2023 to a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of HrQoL in LRRC following cross-cultural adaptation in all participating countries. Scale structure was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). Convergent validity was assessed against EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C scales using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient (r). Known groups comparison was assessed through independent t-tests and ANOVA. Responsiveness was assessed through effect size (ES) and standardised response mean (SRM). The study was registered on the ISRCTN registry (reference: ISRCTN13692671). Findings: Overall, 321 patients were included in the validation of the LRRC-QoL from 14 countries. The LRRC-QoL scale structure demonstrated excellent goodness of fit. Most scales demonstrated good reliability, with Cronbach's Alpha and ICC values > 0.7. Convergent validity confirmed several hypothesised correlations. Known groups validity was demonstrated for gender, pattern of recurrence, pre-operative treatment, treatment intent, and presence of metastases. The LRRC-QoL demonstrated excellent responsiveness; patients undergoing surgery reported worse HrQoL at three (p < 0.0001, ES 0.57, SRM 0.50) and six months (p = 0.001, ES 0.37, SRM 1.11). Interpretation: The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in this international validation analysis and is now validated for use in 14 countries. Funding: Funding was provided by Bowel Research UK and Pelican Cancer Foundation.
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.