Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research

Open access
Giesinger, Johannes M., Loth, Fanny L.C., Aaronson, Neil K., Arraras, Juan I., Caocci, Giovanni, Efficace, Fabio, Groenvold, Mogens, van Leeuwen, Marieke, Petersen, Morten Aa., Ramage, John, Tomaszewski, Krzysztof A., Young, Teresa, Holzner, Bernhard·2020·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs) for the five functioning and nine symptom scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this diagnostic study, cancer patients with mixed diagnoses and treatments completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and anchored the questions in each domain in terms of their clinical importance. The anchor questions, concerned limitations in daily life, need for help/care, and the worries of the patient and his/her partner/family. These questions allowed categorizing patients into whether they exhibited a clinically important symptom/functional impairment for each scale and performing a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to establish TCIs. RESULTS: Data from 498 patients from six European countries (mean age 60.4 years, 55.2% women) were analyzed. For the TCIs generated using the patient questionnaire data, the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales showed sensitivity values between 0.71 and 0.97 and specificity values between 0.62 and 0.92 (area under the curve above 0.80 for all scales). CONCLUSION: This EORTC Quality of Life Group study provides TCIs for the functioning and symptom scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. These TCIs can increase the interpretability of the questionnaire results and foster its use in daily clinical practice and in clinical research.

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.jclinepi.2019.10.003

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 373

Metadata

Authors
Giesinger, J. M., Loth, F. L. C., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Caocci, G., Efficace, F., Groenvold, M., van Leeuwen, M., Petersen, M. A., Ramage, J., Tomaszewski, K. A., Young, T., & Holzner, B.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
118
Pages
1-8
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003
OpenAlex
W2980779881
Cited by
373
References
21
FWCI
11.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003
The paper
Giesinger, J. M., Loth, F. L. C., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Caocci, G., Efficace, F., Groenvold, M., van Leeuwen, M., Petersen, M. A., Ramage, J., Tomaszewski, K. A., Young, T., & Holzner, B. (2020). Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003

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.