CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 244Health disparities and outcomesHealth and Well-being StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality of life and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Phyo, Aung Zaw Zaw, Freak-Poli, Rosanne, Craig, Heather, Gasevic, Danijela, Stocks, Nigel P., Gonzalez-Chica, David A., Ryan, Joanne·2020·BMC Public Health
DOI 10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9PMC PMC7646076

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is multi-dimensional concept of an individual' general well-being status in relation to their value, environment, cultural and social context in which they live. This study aimed to quantitatively synthesise available evidence on the association between QoL and mortality in the general population. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted using three bibliographic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were studies that assessed QoL using standardized tools and examined mortality risk in a non-patient population. Qualitative data synthesis and meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed. RESULTS: Of 4184 articles identified, 47 were eligible for inclusion, involving approximately 1,200,000 participants. Studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of QoL measures, population characteristics and data analysis. In total, 43 studies (91.5%) reported that better QoL was associated with lower mortality risk. The results of four meta-analyses indicated that higher health-related QoL (HRQoL) is associated with lower mortality risk, which was consistent for overall HRQoL (HR 0.633, 95% CI: 0.514 to 0.780), physical function (HR 0.987, 95% CI: 0.982 to 0.992), physical component score (OR 0.950, 95% CI: 0.935 to 0.965), and mental component score (OR 0.980, 95% CI: 0.969 to 0.992). CONCLUSION: These findings provide evidence that better QoL/HRQoL was associated with lower mortality risk. The utility of these measures in predicting mortality risk indicates that they should be considered further as potential screening tools in general clinical practice, beyond the traditional objective measures such as body mass index and the results of laboratory tests.

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 · 10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Flow Diagram of Review Process
Fig. 1 Flow Diagram of Review ProcessCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Forest plot of all-cause mortality risk per one unit increase in a SF-36 PCS, b SF-36 Physical-Functioning, c SF-36 MCS. CI = confidence interval; FU (yrs) = follow-up in years; N = sample size; OR = odds ratio; RR = relative risk; HR = hazard ratio
Fig. 2 Forest plot of all-cause mortality risk per one unit increase in a SF-36 PCS, b SF-36 Physical-Functioning, c SF-36 MCS. CI = confidence interval; FU (yrs) = follow-up in years; N = sample size; OR = odds ratio; RR = relative risk; HR = hazard ratioCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Forest plot of all-cause mortality risk per one-SD (0.14) increase in 15D index. CI = confidence interval; FU (yrs) = follow-up in years; HR = hazard ratio; N = sample size
Fig. 3 Forest plot of all-cause mortality risk per one-SD (0.14) increase in 15D index. CI = confidence interval; FU (yrs) = follow-up in years; HR = hazard ratio; N = sample sizeCC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 94 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, disability, and Health: Children and Youth Version: ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
  2. Phyo. AZZ, Craig. H, Gonzalez-Chica. DA, Stocks. N, Freak-Poli. R, Ryan. J, et al. Quality of life as a predictor of mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019139994 [cited 2019 September 8,]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php? ID=CRD42019139994. · DOI
  3. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia [cited 2019 June 10]. Available from: www.covidence.org .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Phyo, A. Z. Z., Freak-Poli, R., Craig, H., Gasevic, D., Stocks, N. P., Gonzalez-Chica, D. A., & Ryan, J.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Ryan, Joanne
ORCID
Venue
BMC Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-11-06
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
1596-1596
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9
PMC
PMC7646076
OpenAlex
W3097138102
Cited by
243
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (cc-by)
Funders
  • Monash University (Monash International Tuition Scholarship and Monash Graduate Scholarship Student ID: 30072360)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (Dementia Research Leader Fellowship (APP1135727))
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
quality of life, health-related quality of life, mortality risk, physical function, physical component summary, mental component score, mortality prediction, screening tool, general population
MeSH terms
Humans, Mass Screening, Quality of Life

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