Evidence mapPaperPMID 38194151Full record

SynthesisOsteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA2024

Health-related quality of life in osteoporosis: a systematic review of measurement properties of the QUALEFFO-41.

Yai Wen Choo, Nurul Ain Mohd Tahir, Mohd Shahrir Mohamed Said, Mohd Makmor Bakry

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Transcultural adaptation and validation of the QUALEFFO-41 Questionnaire for Hebrew-Speaking Israeli women with postmenopausal osteoporosis with and without vertebral fractures.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yai Wen ChooFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6393-0617
Nurul Ain Mohd TahirFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. nurulainmt@ukm.edu.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0353-4799
Mohd Shahrir Mohamed SaidDepartment of Medicine, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1459-1844
Mohd Makmor BakryFaculty of Pharmacy, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0592-0645

Funding

Pusat Pengurusan Penyelidikan dan Instrumentasi GGPM-2019-054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 41-item Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) is a widely used and freely available patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). However, data on its reliability, validity, and responsiveness remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the measurement properties of the QUALEFFO-41. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Cochrane Library from their inception up to December 2022 was performed. Data were extracted, and the methodological quality of each measurement property was evaluated according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. The evidence of the measurement properties was rated against the updated criteria for good measurement properties, and the quality of evidence was graded using the modified GRADE approach. A total of 99 articles were identified, of which eight studies were included in the review. The QUALEFFO-41 is categorized as B as it demonstrated moderate quality evidence for sufficient content validity, moderate-to-high quality evidence for sufficient hypothesis testing for construct validity (except for the social function domain for convergent validity), and very low-quality evidence for sufficient responsiveness. For structural validity and internal consistency, only the domains of pain and general health perception were sufficient with low-quality evidence. For reliability, only the domain of physical function was sufficient with low-quality evidence. None of the studies reported measurement error, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity. The QUALEFFO-41 may be a promising, valid, and reliable PROM to assess HRQoL in osteoporosis patients with vertebral fractures. However, future studies must focus on good methodological quality to strengthen the evidence of measurement properties, especially on structural validity, reliability, responsiveness, and cross-cultural validity. The systematic review evaluated the measurement properties of the QUALEFFO-41 questionnaire for assessing Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in osteoporosis patients. The review found moderate-to-high-quality evidence for construct validity but limited evidence for responsiveness and other properties. Future studies should focus on strengthening the evidence, particularly for structural validity, reliability, responsiveness, and cross-cultural validity. The QUALEFFO-41 shows promise as a valid and reliable PROM for HRQoL assessment in osteoporosis patients.

Indexed as

OsteoporosisPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsHealth-related quality of lifeMeasurement propertiesOsteoporosisQUALEFFO-41Systematic review

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.