Observational studyBMJ open2026
Reliability and validity of EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels in patients with haematologic malignancies: a cross-sectional study in China.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRobust assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is essential for evaluating the disease burden in patients with haematologic malignancies. This study examined the performance of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D) instrument in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), acute leukaemia (AL) and lymphoma using time trade-off (TTO)-elicited utility scores as the reference, and explored factors contributing to discrepancies between EQ-5D and TTO utilities.
designWe performed a cross-sectional observational study using EQ-5D and TTO to assess HRQoL.
settingA leading tertiary care hospital in China.
participants158 patients consecutively admitted to hospital for MM (n=50), AL (n=63) and lymphoma (n=45) between January and August 2024. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the EQ-5D performance in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach's α), criterion validity (Spearman's correlation with TTO), and structural validity (exploratory factor analysis). The secondary outcome was the patient characteristics associated with discrepancies between EQ-5D and TTO utilities.
resultsTTO utility scores were highest in AL (0.798), followed by lymphoma (0.755) and MM (0.693). EQ-5D utility values were consistently higher than TTO across all groups. Among the three groups, EQ-5D demonstrated the best psychometric performance in patients with MM, with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.899), strongest correlation with TTO (r=0.538, p<0.001) and high structural validity. By contrast, EQ-5D showed moderate validity in AL (r=0.386, p=0.002) and poor validity in lymphoma (r=0.230, p=0.129). In patients with AL, chronic kidney failure was significantly associated with greater TTO-EQ-5D utility discrepancy (coefficient=0.213, p=0.035).
conclusionsEQ-5D performed well in patients with MM, supporting its use in this population. In patients with AL, adjustments for clinical characteristics such as chronic kidney failure may improve the accuracy of EQ-5D utility values. The poor psychometric performance of EQ-5D in patients with lymphoma raises concerns about its appropriateness as a standalone instrument for HRQoL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.