ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2026
Mapping EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores to EQ-5D-5L utility values for gynecological cancer survivors in follow-up care.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo develop mapping algorithms from the EORTC-QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D-5L utilities for gynecological cancer survivors in follow-up care, enabling cost-effectiveness analyses when EQ-5D-5L utilities are unavailable.
methodsWe used data from a Norwegian multicentre longitudinal study of gynecological cancer survivors in post-treatment follow-up (LETSGO), including 663 patients with 2,624 observations. Ten model types were estimated for three EQ-5D-5L value sets (Norwegian, UK, US): ordinary least squares, Tobit, beta and fractional logistic regression, linear mixed models, an adjusted limited dependent variable mixture model, and two-part models combining logistic regression for the probability of perfect health with OLS, mixed, beta or fractional logistic regression for utilities below 1. Each was fitted with three prespecified covariate sets comprising all EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, with and without age, comorbidities and treatment type. Stratified five-fold cross-validation at the patient level was used for internal validation. Performance was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), proportion of predictions with absolute error (AE) ≤ 0.05 and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and summarized using an average ranking value.
resultsA two-part fractional logistic model with all covariates ranked highest, with MAE 0.0539-0.0660, RMSE 0.0806-0.0960, AE ≤ 0.05 for 54.8-67.1% of observations and CCC 0.7559-0.8034. Differences between the best-performing specifications were small. Accuracy declined at low utility levels, though overall mean bias was minimal.
conclusionsThe algorithm enables estimation of EQ-5D-5L utilities from EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores in populations with severity profiles similar to the LETSGO cohort. Accuracy is reduced in poor health states.
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.