ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Thresholds for clinical importance to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-COMU26 communication questionnaire.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study defined thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs) for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Communication Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-COMU26). TCIs support the clinical evaluation of individual patients' communication with professionals.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, an international sample of cancer patients with mixed diagnoses and treatments completed the EORTC QLQ-COMU26, which comprises six scales and four individual items. Item 26, which evaluates patients' satisfaction with communication with professionals, served as the anchor for detecting a negative event (unsatisfactory communication). Diagnostic accuracy for each domain was determined using ROC analysis, and the sensitivity of the TCIs was evaluated. Sensitivity analyses using multivariate binary logistic regression explored potential variability in TCIs across patient groups.
resultsA total of 988 patients from 13 countries participated (mean age, 60.7; 50.0% female). TCIs ranged from 80.3 to 92.5 on the 0-100 metric of the QLQ-COMU26 scales. All TCIs demonstrated sensitivity of at least 0.75, and ROC AUC values ranged from 0.80 to 0.90. Separate TCIs were identified for communication with nurses and doctors, with thresholds > 4 points higher for nurses in five QLQ-COMU26 domains. No evidence supported separate thresholds by age, gender, or treatment intention.
conclusionThis study established TCIs with high diagnostic accuracy for the EORTC QLQ-COMU26, supporting its use in clinical practice and research. The findings suggest that the questionnaire can identify patients who report low communication for specific domains and help improve communication in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42902021What 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.