↓ Skip to main content

Testing mapping algorithms of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D in malignant mesothelioma

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Testing mapping algorithms of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D in malignant mesothelioma
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-014-0196-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

David T Arnold, Donna Rowen, Matthijs M Versteegh, Anna Morley, Clare E Hooper, Nicholas A Maskell

Abstract

BackgroundIn order to estimate utilities for cancer studies where the EQ-5D was not used, the EORTC QLQ-C30 can be used to estimate EQ-5D using existing mapping algorithms. Several mapping algorithms exist for this transformation, however, algorithms tend to lose accuracy in patients in poor health states. The aim of this study was to test all existing mapping algorithms of QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D, in a dataset of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, an invariably fatal malignancy where no previous mapping estimation has been published.MethodsHealth related quality of life (HRQoL) data where both the EQ-5D and QLQ-C30 were used simultaneously was obtained from the UK-based prospective observational SWAMP (South West Area Mesothelioma and Pemetrexed) trial. In the original trial 73 patients with pleural mesothelioma were offered palliative chemotherapy and their HRQoL was assessed across five time points. This data was used to test the nine available mapping algorithms found in the literature, comparing predicted against observed EQ-5D values. The ability of algorithms to predict the mean, minimise error and detect clinically significant differences was assessed.ResultsThe dataset had a total of 250 observations across 5 timepoints. The linear regression mapping algorithms tested generally performed poorly, over-estimating the predicted compared to observed EQ-5D values, especially when observed EQ-5D was below 0.5. The best performing algorithm used a response mapping method and predicted the mean EQ-5D with accuracy with an average root mean squared error of 0.17 (Standard Deviation; 0.22). This algorithm reliably discriminated between clinically distinct subgroups seen in the primary dataset.ConclusionsThis study tested mapping algorithms in a population with poor health states, where they have been previously shown to perform poorly. Further research into EQ-5D estimation should be directed at response mapping methods given its superior performance in this study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Chile 1 2%
Unknown 42 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 22%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Professor 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 33%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 13 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,449
of 2,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,885
of 359,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#22
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.