The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the significance to patients of changes in health-related quality-of-life (HLQ) scores assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A subjective significance questionnaire (SSQ), which asks patients about perceived changes in physical, emotional, and social functioning and in global quality of life (global QL) and the QLQ-C30 were completed by patients who received chemotherapy for either breast cancer or small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). In the SSQ, patients rated their perception of change since the last time they completed the QLQ-C30 using a 7-category scale that ranged from "much worse" through "no change" to "much better." For each category of change in the SSQ, the corresponding differences were calculated in QLQ-C30 mean scores and effect sizes were determined. RESULTS: For patients who indicated "no change" in the SSQ, the mean change in scores in the corresponding QLQ-C30 domains was not significantly different from 0. For patients who indicated "a little" change either for better or for worse, the mean change in scores was about 5 to 10; for "moderate" change, about 10 to 20; and for "very much" change, greater than 20. Effect sizes increased in concordance with increasing changes in SSQ ratings and QLQ-C30 scores. CONCLUSION: The significance of changes in QLQ-C30 scores can be interpreted in terms of small, moderate, or large changes in quality of life as reported by patients in the SSQ. The magnitude of these changes also can be used to calculate the sample sizes required to detect a specified change in 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.
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
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., Filiberti, A., Flechtner, H., Fleishman, S. B., Haes, J. C. J. M. D., et al. (1993) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/85.5.365 · Cited by 16,005
Self-citation
Cited by
FOLFIRINOX versus Gemcitabine for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
Conroy, T., Desseigne, F., Ychou, M., Bouché, O., Guimbaud, R., Bécouarn, Y., Adenis, A., Raoul, J.-L., Gourgou-Bourgade, S., de la Fouchardière, C., et al. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1011923 · Cited by 7,810
Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Shepherd, F. A., Rodrigues Pereira, J., Ciuleanu, T., Tan, E. H., Hirsh, V., Thongprasert, S., Campos, D., Maoleekoonpiroj, S., Smylie, M., Martins, R., et al. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa050753 · Cited by 5,419
Nivolumab for Recurrent Squamous-Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
Ferris, R. L., Blumenschein, G., Fayette, J., Guigay, J., Colevas, A. D., Licitra, L., Harrington, K., Kasper, S., Vokes, E. E., Even, C., et al. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1602252 · Cited by 5,101
K-ras Mutations and Benefit from Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Karapetis, C. S., Khambata-Ford, S., Jonker, D. J., O'Callaghan, C. J., Tu, D., Tebbutt, N. C., Simes, R. J., Chalchal, H., Shapiro, J. D., Robitaille, S., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0804385 · Cited by 3,622
Olaparib for Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients with a Germline BRCA Mutation
Robson, M., Im, S.-A., Senkus, E., Xu, B., Domchek, S. M., Masuda, N., Delaloge, S., Li, W., Tung, N., Armstrong, A., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1706450 · Cited by 3,294
Metadata
- Authors
- Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 139-144
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1947168884
- Cited by
- 2,961
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_edition (2023-12-06)
- 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
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.