The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minimal clinically meaningful differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients
Open accessAbstract
Background We aimed to determine the smallest changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and the Brain Cancer Module (QLQ-BN20), which could be considered as clinically meaningful in brain cancer patients.Materials and methods World Health Organisation performance status (PS) and mini-mental state examination (MMSE) were used as clinical anchors appropriate to related subscales to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in HRQoL change scores (range 0-100) in the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20. A threshold of 0.2 standard deviation (SD) (small effect) was used to exclude anchor-based MCID estimates considered too small to inform interpretation.Results Based on PS, our findings support the following integer estimates of the MCID for improvement and deterioration, respectively: physical (6, 9), role (14, 12), and cognitive functioning (8, 8); global health status (7, 4*), fatigue (12, 9), and motor dysfunction (4*, 5). Anchoring with MMSE, cognitive functioning MCID estimates for improvement and deterioration were (11, 2*) and for communication deficit were (9, 7). Estimates with asterisks were <0.2 SD and were excluded from our MCID range of 5-14.Conclusion These estimates can help clinicians evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, assess the value of a health care intervention and can be useful in determining sample sizes in designing future clinical trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The minimal clinically important difference estimates for the EORTC QLQ-C30 are 5-14 points.
“(MCID estimates of 5–14 points) [32].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
The Abstract and Discussion (pages not provided) report an anchor-based MCID range of 5–14 points for selected QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 scales in brain cancer patients. The 5-point estimate is for motor dysfunction on the QLQ-BN20, not the QLQ-C30. The citation therefore supports the reported overall range but not its attribution solely to the QLQ-C30. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPre- versus during COVID-19 pandemic comparisons by Jeppesen et al. and Koining et al. revealed that global quality of life and emotional functioning ascertained through EORTC QLQ-C30 were not significantly altered by the pandemic.
“Interestingly, pre- versus during COVID-19 pandemic comparisons conducted by Jeppesen et al. [22] and Koining et al. [23] revealed that the global QoL and emotional functioning ascertained through EORTC QLQ-C30 were not significantly altered by the pandemic, which can be considered clinically significant (MCID estimates of 5–14 points) [32].”
From The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review (2022) · cites this paper as [32]
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
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Stupp, R., Hegi, M. E., Mason, W. P., van den Bent, M. J., TAPHOORN, M. J. B., Janzer, R. C., Ludwin, S. K., Allgeier, A., Fisher, B., Bélanger, K., et al. (2009) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70025-7 · Cited by 7,667
Self-citationJaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 · Cited by 4,982
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.
Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B. C.-Y., & Pater, J. L. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.139 · Cited by 3,013
Self-citationFayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001) · Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) · Cited by 2,520
Self-citationRevicki, D. A., Hays, R. D., Cella, D. F., & Sloan, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 · Cited by 2,384
Methods to Explain the Clinical Significance of Health Status Measures
Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., & Norman, G. R. (2002) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/77.4.371 · Cited by 1,525
Self-citationDefining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life
Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1 · Cited by 1,333
Determining Clinically Important Differences in Health Status Measures
Samsa, G., Edelman, D. E., Rothman, M. L., Williams, G. R., Lipscomb, J., & Matchar, D. B. (1999) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.2165/00019053-199915020-00003 · Cited by 917
Cella, D. F., Eton, D. T., Lai, J., Peterman, A. H., & Merkel, D. E. (2002) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(02)00529-8 · Cited by 814
van den Bent, M. J., Carpentier, A. F., Brandes, A. A., Sanson, M., TAPHOORN, M. J. B., Bernsen, H. J. J. A., Frénay, M., Tijssen, C. C., Grisold, W., Sipos, L., et al. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.04.6078 · Cited by 745
Self-citationThe interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30
King, M. T. (1996) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf00439229 · Cited by 666
Self-citationInterpretation of quality of life changes
LYDICK, E. G., & Epstein, R. S. (1993) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf00435226 · Cited by 531
Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., & Dineen, K. K. (2002) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1023/a:1015276414526 · Cited by 523
Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., Sledge, G. W., & Wood, W. C. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.01.012 · Cited by 390
Hjermstad, M. J., Fosså, S. D., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1995) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1995.13.5.1249 · Cited by 368
Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Muller, M. J., Sneeuw, K. C. A., Hsu, M.-A., Yung, W. K. A., Brada, M., & Newlands, E. S. (1996) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/bf00435979 · Cited by 343
Self-citationInterpreting clinically significant changes in patient‐reported outcomes
Ringash, J. G., O’Sullivan, B., Bezjak, A., & Redelmeier, D. A. (2007) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.22799 · Cited by 305
Self-citationThe Mini-Mental State Examination in General Medical Practice: Clinical Utility and Acceptance
Tangalos, E. G., Smith, G. E., Ivnik, R. J., Petersen, R. C., Kokmen, E., Kurland, L. T., Offord, K. P., & Parisi, J. E. (1996) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.4065/71.9.829 · Cited by 260
Brown, P. D., Buckner, J. C., O'Fallon, J. R., et al. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.04.172 · Cited by 238
Cocks, K., King, M. T., Velikova, G., Fayers, P. M., & Brown, J. M. (2008) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.05.008 · Cited by 183
Self-citationHalf standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores?
Farivar, S. S., Liu, H., & Hays, R. D. (2004) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1586/14737167.4.5.515 · Cited by 182
Simple as Possible? Or Too Simple?
Beaton, D. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000064706.35861.b4 · Cited by 64
King, M. T., Stockler, M. R., Cella, D. F., Osoba, D., Eton, D. T., Thompson, J., & Eisenstein, A. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.05.001 · Cited by 56
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Psychosocial Impact of COVID-19 on Older Adults with Cancer: A Rapid Review
Verma, R., Kilgour, H. M., & Haase, K. R. (2022) · Current Oncology · doi:10.3390/curroncol29020053 · Cited by 19
“[23] revealed that the global QoL and emotional functioning ascertained through EORTC QLQ-C30 were not significantly altered by the pandemic, which can be considered clinically significant (MCID estimates of 5–14 points) [32].”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Maringwa, J., Quinten, C., King, M., Ringash, J., Osoba, D., Coens, C., Martinelli, F., Reeve, B. B., Gotay, C., Greimel, E., Flechtner, H., Cleeland, C. S., Schmucker-Von Koch, J., Weis, J., Van Den Bent, M. J., Stupp, R., Taphoorn, M. J., & Bottomley, A.
- Affiliations
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NL)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Medical University of Graz (AT)
- University Hospital Magdeburg (DE)
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
- Medisch Centrum Haaglanden (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Maringwa, J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Annals of Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2107-2112
- ISSN
- 0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2090405189
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 4.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Annals of Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- reroDoc Digital Library (submittedVersion)
- IRIS (submittedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerul Cercetării, Inovării şi Digitalizării
- Pfizer Foundation
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Keywords
- minimal clinically important difference, EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BN20, brain cancer, health-related quality of life, performance status, Mini-Mental State Examination, cognitive function, fatigue, motor impairment, communication difficulties
- MeSH terms
- Brain Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Report
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
