ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Studying different variations of ranking method to explore health related quality of life dimensions prioritization.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
purposeResearchers have argued that EQ-5D may not capture all aspects in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), they therefore proposed adding additional dimensions. However, whether additional dimensions are more important than EQ-5D dimensions is unknown. This study aimed to explore the impact of four different ranking tasks on eliciting health preferences and assess which ranking task provides better consistency and test-retest reliability.
methodsBesides the five EQ-5D dimensions, nine HRQoL dimensions were selected, including culturally universal dimensions and culturally specific dimensions relevant to Chinese. To evaluate the impact of dimension descriptions and instructions, we tested four ranking tasks derived from two dimension description versions and two instruction versions. Each participant completed the questionnaires twice, enabling intra-group comparisons, including test-retest reliability when using same questionnaire and consistency when using different questionnaires.
resultsThe phrase "moderate problems with [dimension]" yielded more stable rankings than simply using "problems", even when the instruction varied. When dimension descriptions differed, the correlation between rankings was lower (rₛ = 0.859) than when instructions varied (rₛ = 0.961). Additionally, when using the same instruction, aggregate test-retest reliability of "moderate problems" was higher (rₛ = 0.972) than that of "problems" (rₛ = 0.871). The average median of correlation coefficient of "moderate problems" (0.81 (0.56~0.89)) was higher than that of "problems" (0.70 (0.45~0.79)).
conclusionThis study shows that ranking method is feasible and that the dimension description influences the outcome. When compared to "problems" description, the results using "moderate problems" description shows higher aggregate stability and individual-level test-retest consistency.
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.