m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025

EORTC QLU-C10D was similarly valid and sensitive as EQ-5D-5L but more responsive to cancer patients' health deterioration.

СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Wang Luying, Gandhi Mihir, Kanesvaran Ravindran, Bin Harunal Rashid Mohamad Farid, Chong Dawn Qingqing, Chay Wen-Yee, Norman Richard, King Madeleine T, Luo Nan

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES: The psychometric performance of the Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D), a recently developed disease-specific preference-based measure (PBM) for patients with cancer, is not well understood yet. This study aimed to compare the construct validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness of QLU-C10D with that of 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L), a generic PBM.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recruited patients with cancer from outpatient clinics of a tertiary cancer hospital then interviewed them face-to-face at two consecutive clinic visits using both QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Construct validity was assessed through known-group comparisons and correlation analysis, agreement of utility scores was examined using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and sensitivity and responsiveness compared using effect sizes (ESs) derived from known-group comparisons and standardized response means (SRMs) derived from within-group comparisons, respectively.

RESULTS: We surveyed 626 patients; 280 of whom also completed the follow-up survey. Mean baseline QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-5L utility scores were 0.799 (SD: 0.224) and 0.916 (SD: 0.156), respectively. Both utility scores demonstrated known-groups and convergent/discriminant validity and their agreement was moderate (ICC: 0.60). EQ-5D-5L's ES was slightly higher than QLU-C10D's ES for cancer stage, whereas QLU-C10D's ES was higher for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. The SRM of QLU-C10D was considerably higher than that of EQ-5D-5L for deteriorated patients (-0.43 vs -0.02), whereas their SRMs were similar for the improved patients.

CONCLUSION: Although QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-5L utility scores are both valid in patients with cancer, they may not be used interchangeably, and the QLU-C10D scores appear to be more responsive to deterioration in health status than the EQ-5D-5Lscores.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты