↓ Skip to main content

Thresholds for clinical importance for four key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Thresholds for clinical importance for four key domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30: physical functioning, emotional functioning, fatigue and pain
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0489-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes M. Giesinger, Wilma Kuijpers, Teresa Young, Krzysztof A. Tomaszewski, Elizabeth Friend, August Zabernigg, Bernhard Holzner, Neil K. Aaronson

Abstract

The EORTC QLQ-C30 is one of the most widely used quality of life questionnaires in cancer research. Availability of thresholds for clinical importance for the individual questionnaire domains could help to increase its interpretability. The aim of our study was to identify thresholds for clinical importance for four EORTC QLQ-C30 scales: Physical Functioning (PF), Emotional Functioning (EF), Pain (PA) and Fatigue (FA). We recruited adult cancer patients from Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and the UK. No restrictions were placed on diagnosis or type or stage of treatment. Patients completed the QLQ-C30 and three anchor items reflecting potential attributes of clinically important levels of PF, EF, PA and FA. We merged the anchor items assessing perceived burden, limitations in daily activities and need for help into a dichotomous external criterion to estimate thresholds for clinical importance using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analysis. In our sample of 548 cancer patients (mean age 60.6 years; 54 % female), the QLQ-C30 scales showed high diagnostic accuracy in identifying patients reporting burden, limitations and/or need for help related to PF, EF, PA and FA. All areas under the curve were above 0.86. We were able to estimate thresholds for clinical importance for four QLQ-C30 scales. When used in daily clinical practice, these thresholds can help to identify patients with clinically important problems requiring further exploration and possibly intervention by health care professionals.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 106 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 18%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 20 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Psychology 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 27 25%

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 07 June 2016.
All research outputs
#12,269,475
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,157
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,186
of 268,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 268,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them