ArticlePsycho-oncology2026
Equipercentile Equating of Scores From Common Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Role, Social, and Emotional Functioning in Patients With Cancer.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are fundamental in evaluating cancer treatments within clinical research and practice. The existence of various PROMs that assess similar health domains presents challenges for comparing or aggregating study results and data. Score linking is a well-established method for addressing this issue by converting scores from the metric of one PROM to another.
aimsTo provide equipercentile equating of psychosocial scales from commonly used PROMs in cancer patients to facilitate data pooling and comparisons.
methodsCancer patients with diverse diagnoses from five European countries completed the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT-G, SF-36, and HADS Emotional, Role, and Social functioning (EF; RF; SF) scales. For scales with Spearman correlations exceeding 0.70, scores were linked using equipercentile equating as provided by the R package "equate". To evaluate linking precision, Standardized Mean Absolute Errors (SMAEs) were calculated.
resultsA total of 945 cancer patients were included in the analysis (mean age 58.4 years; 54.7% male). Bidirectional conversion tables were established for three pairs of SF/RF scales and 10 pairs of EF scales. Overall, linking was possible for most scales from the EORTC Measures, SF-36, and HADS, whereas the FACT-G allowed linking only for its Emotional Well-Being (EWB) scale.
conclusionsThe findings suggest greater linking ability for EF scales compared to RF and SF scales, which seem to be more heterogeneous in terms of content. The established crosswalks support the combined evaluation of data from different PROMs.
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.