ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
When do we need to take action? Cut-off values for the hamburg inventory for measuring quality of life in oncological patients (HELP-6).
Article in Journal of patient-reported 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeResults of patient-reported outcome measurements need to be comprehensible and conclusive for a successful integration into treatment in cancer care. The aim of this study was to determine cut-off values for the recently developed "Hamburg Inventory for Measuring Quality of Life in Oncological Patients-6" (HELP-6), a short measurement for Health-related Quality of Life (HrQoL) in routine care in oncological patients.
methodsOncological in- and out-patients with differing cancer entities participated in this study. The survey included the HELP-6 and standardized questionnaires (Distress-Thermometer, PHQ-4, Fact-G, PDI-G). Six receiver operating characteristics analyses were performed, one for each scale of the instrument (Emotional Health, Physical Ailment, Social Functionality, Autonomy, Dignity, Resources).
resultsFor five of the six scales cut-offs could be determined. Areas under the Curve were between 0.7 and 0.8. However, the Dignity scale demonstrated poor discriminative validity, failing to distinguish adequately between severity levels of patient groups.
conclusionBy applying the HELP-6 with the cut-off values established in this study, clinicians can more readily interpret patients' HrQoL, thereby supporting effective clinical decision-making. This feature is especially valuable in routine care, where streamlined monitoring of patient quality of life is paramount. Further conceptualization and validation of the Dignity scale, as well as its integration into patient-reported outcome measures, are warranted.
trial registrationThe complete study including the development of the instrument was registered at Open Science Framework ***redacted for peer-review***. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.