Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Quality-of-Life Measurements

Gill, Thomas M.·1994·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
DOI 10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how well quality of life is being measured in the medical literature and to offer a new approach to the measurement. DATA SOURCES: Original English-language articles having the term "quality of life" in their titles were identified from a recent Quality-of-Life Bibliography and from two MEDLINE searches. Articles were eligible for review only if they described or used one or more "quality-of-life" instruments. STUDY SELECTION: Twenty-five articles were randomly selected from each of the three data sources. DATA EXTRACTION: Each article was reviewed for its compliance with two sets of criteria having several components, which are cited under "Data Synthesis." DATA SYNTHESIS: (1) Investigators conceptually defined quality of life in only 11 (15%) of the 75 articles; identified the targeted domains in only 35 (47%); gave reasons for selecting the chosen quality-of-life instruments in only 27 (36%); and aggregated their results into a composite quality-of-life score in only 27 (38%) of 71 eligible articles. (2) No article distinguished "overall" quality of life from health-related quality of life; patients were invited to give their own separate rating for quality of life in only 13 articles (17%); and among 71 eligible articles, patients were asked to supplement the stipulated items with personal responses in only nine (13%) and to rate the importance of individual items in only six (8.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Because quality of life is a uniquely personal perception, denoting the way that individual patients feel about their health status and/or nonmedical aspects of their lives, most measurements of quality of life in the medical literature seem to aim at the wrong target. Quality of life can be suitably measured only by determining the opinions of patients and by supplementing (or replacing) the instruments developed by "experts."

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Gill, T. M.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1994-08-24
Volume
272
Issue
8
Pages
619
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1994.03520080061045
OpenAlex
W2031065729
Cited by
2,208
References
1
FWCI
246.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.