Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 462

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States

Open access
Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Petersen, M.A., Aaronson, N.K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P.M., Groenvold, M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C.D., Kemmler, G., Tomaszewski, K.A., Waldmann, A., Young, T.E., Rose, M.·2019·European Journal of Cancer
DOI 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.024
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire is one of the most widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires worldwide. General population norm data can facilitate the interpretation of QLQ-C30 data obtained from cancer patients. This study aimed at systematically collecting norm data from the general population to develop European QLQ-C30 norm scores and to generate comparable norm data for individual countries in Europe and North America. METHODS: We collected QLQ-C30 data from the general population across 11 European Union (EU) countries, Russia, Turkey, Canada and United States (n ≥ 1000/country). Representative samples were stratified by sex and age groups (18-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69 and ≥ 70 years). After applying weights based on the United Nations population distribution statistics, we calculated QLQ-C30 domain scores to generate a 'European QLQ-C30 Norm' based on the EU countries. Further, we calculated QLQ-C30 norm scores for all 15 individual countries. RESULTS: A total of 15,386 respondents completed the online survey. For the EU sample, most QLQ-C30 domains showed differences by sex/age, with men scoring somewhat better health than women, while age effects varied across domains. Substantially larger differences were seen in inter-country comparisons, with Austrian and Dutch respondents reporting consistently better health compared with British and Polish respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to systematically collect EORTC QLQ-C30 general population norm data across Europe and North America applying a consistent data collection method across 15 countries. These new norm data facilitate valid intra-country as well as inter-country comparisons and QLQ-C30 score interpretation.

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 · 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.024

Cites

37 of 37 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

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A., Aaronson, N. K., Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Holzner, B., Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., Tomaszewski, K. A., Waldmann, A., Young, T. E., & Rose, M.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
107
Pages
153-163
ISSN
0959-8049 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.024
OpenAlex
W2906639914
Cited by
462
References
37
FWCI
13.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
Funders
  • European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (001 2015)
  • Austrian Science Fund (FWF #P26930)

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.