The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials.
Abstract
A questionnaire has been developed for use as an outcome measure in clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy in women with stage II breast cancer. The selection of items for this Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) was based on the problems and experiences felt to be most important by women undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The BCQ consists of 30 questions that focus on loss of attractiveness, fatigue, physical symptoms, inconvenience, emotional distress, and feelings of hope and support from others. The BCQ, other instruments that evaluate quality-of-life (Spitzer, Karnofsky, and Rand), and patient and physician global assessments were administered serially to 418 patients taking part in a randomized trial comparing a 12-week regimen and a 36-week regimen of adjuvant chemotherapy. The validity of the BCQ is supported by its correlation with the Rand Emotional (r = .58), Rand Physical (r = .60), and Spitzer (r = .62) questionnaires. The BCQ correlated more strongly with global ratings of both physical and emotional function by the patients and their physicians than the other instruments. A comparison of the quality-of-life outcomes of patients in the two treatment groups in the period beyond 3 months after initiation of treatment, when one group had completed the treatment course and the other was still on treatment, revealed that the BCQ and Karnofsky were the only instruments able to demonstrate differences between the groups (P less than .0001). Hence, the BCQ is a valid and responsive method of assessing treatment-related morbidity in patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II breast cancer.
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.
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
Cited by
The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., Silberman, M., Yellen, S. B., Winicour, P., & Brannon, J. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.3.570 · Cited by 6,020
Brady, M. J., Cella, D. F., Mo, F., Bonomi, A. E., Tulsky, D. S., Lloyd, S. R., Deasy, S., Cobleigh, M., & Shiomoto, G. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1997.15.3.974 · Cited by 1,752
Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., Franklin, J., te Velde, A., Muller, M., Franzini, L., Williams, A., de Haes, H. C., Hopwood, P., et al. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.1996.14.10.2756 · Cited by 1,220
Measuring Quality of Life in Asthma
Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., Ferrie, P. J., & Griffith, L. E. (1993) · American Review of Respiratory Disease · doi:10.1164/ajrccm/147.4.832 · Cited by 887
Self-citationResponsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification
Guyatt, G. H., Deyo, R. A., Charlson, M., Levine, M. N., & Mitchell, A. (1989) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90128-5 · Cited by 480
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Levine, M. N., Guyatt, G. H., Gent, M., De Pauw, S., Goodyear, M. D., Hryniuk, W. M., Arnold, A., Findlay, B., Skillings, J. R., & Bramwell, V. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1798-1810
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2267683808
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.97
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1988.6.12.1798
- The paper
- Levine, M. N., Guyatt, G. H., Gent, M., De Pauw, S., Goodyear, M. D., Hryniuk, W. M., Arnold, A., Findlay, B., Skillings, J. R., & Bramwell, V. H. (1988). Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1988.6.12.1798
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.