Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials

UTSePress Research/Manakin Repository

Search UTSePress Research


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Cocks, Kim en_US
dc.contributor.author King, Madeleine en_US
dc.contributor.author Velikova, Galina en_US
dc.contributor.author Fayers, Peter en_US
dc.contributor.author Brown, J en_US
dc.contributor.editor en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-02-10T06:09:21Z
dc.date.available 2012-02-10T06:09:21Z
dc.date.issued 2008 en_US
dc.identifier 2007002381 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Cocks Kim et al. 2008, 'Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials', Pergamon, vol. 44, no. 13, pp. 1793-1798. en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0959-8049 en_US
dc.identifier.other C1 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10453/16999
dc.description.abstract Aim To review reporting standard, presentation and interpretation for quality of life (QOL) outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Methods Cancer RCTs reporting EORTC QLQ-C30 data were identified and reviewed against a reporting quality checklist. Interpretation/presentation methods for QOL data were also recorded. Results Eighty-two papers were reviewed. Seventy percent met criteria for high quality reporting; 94% reported mean scores; 84% presented results in tables/graphs; 80% reported p-values or statistical significance. Clinical significance was addressed in 38%. Where clinical significance was not addressed, reliance was usually on statistical significance to interpret the results. Discussion EORTC QLQ-C30 results are generally reported well, although it was common to rely on statistical significance alone for interpreting results. Whilst interpretation in terms of clinical significance has improved in recent years, there is still a lack of robust clinical interpretation of QOL results even in papers reported to a high standard. en_US
dc.language en_US
dc.publisher Pergamon en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.05.008 en_US
dc.title Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials en_US
dc.parent European Journal of Cancer en_US
dc.journal.volume 44 en_US
dc.journal.number 13 en_US
dc.publocation United Kingdom en_US
dc.identifier.startpage 1793 en_US
dc.identifier.endpage 1798 en_US
dc.cauo.name BUS.Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation en_US
dc.conference Verified OK en_US
dc.for 111200 en_US
dc.personcode 0000041841 en_US
dc.personcode 020118 en_US
dc.personcode 0000032287 en_US
dc.personcode FAYEP en_US
dc.personcode 0000041842 en_US
dc.percentage 100 en_US
dc.classification.name Oncology and Carcinogenesis en_US
dc.classification.type FOR-08 en_US
dc.edition en_US
dc.custom en_US
dc.date.activity en_US
dc.location.activity en_US
dc.description.keywords Quality of life, QLQ-C30, interpretation en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record