EORTC QLQ-C30、EORTC CAT核心和EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL临床重要性阈值的使用和应用——一项系统的范围综述。

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Micha J Pilz, Anna M M Thurner, Lisa M Storz, Daniela Krepper, Johannes M Giesinger
{"title":"EORTC QLQ-C30、EORTC CAT核心和EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL临床重要性阈值的使用和应用——一项系统的范围综述。","authors":"Micha J Pilz, Anna M M Thurner, Lisa M Storz, Daniela Krepper, Johannes M Giesinger","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02387-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs) were previously established for the cancer-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measures EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ CAT Core, and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. TCIs aim to aid the interpretation of scores for individual patients at a single point in time. They intend to indicate whether a symptom or functional health limitation is of clinical relevance, i.e., requires to be discussed with healthcare professionals. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to describe the uptake of TCIs by the research community and discuss opportunities and threats in their application to PRO data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science databases that contained search terms on the respective PRO measures and TCIs. Additionally, we performed a hand search on citations of the original TCI articles on Google Scholar. Articles were included if they applied TCIs in the analysis or the interpretation of PRO data or in clinical practice. Data concerning the study design, the use of TCIs, the terminology, and the application of TCIs were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 512 articles were identified. After title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction was performed on 117 of these articles. Most articles reported on longitudinal-observational (n = 55) or cross-sectional observational (n = 49) studies, whereby the most frequent cancer populations having mixed diagnoses (n = 25), breast cancer (n = 23), haematological malignancies (n = 18), or colorectal cancer (n = 11). Various terms were used to refer to the concept of TCIs, with \"thresholds for clinical importance\" being the most frequently used term (n = 63; 50.8%). Strikingly, 41 of the 117 articles (35.0%) reported that TCIs were applied to group-level data (e.g. mean scores), which is a clearly unintended application of the TCIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TCIs are frequently used by the research community and thus enhanced the interpretability of PRO data in oncology. While most studies correctly applied TCIs in their analysis and interpretation, further guidance and clarification on their use are required. This article aims to contribute to this endeavour.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"55"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135517/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The current use and application of thresholds for clinical importance of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the EORTC CAT core and the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL- a systematic scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Micha J Pilz, Anna M M Thurner, Lisa M Storz, Daniela Krepper, Johannes M Giesinger\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12955-025-02387-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs) were previously established for the cancer-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measures EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ CAT Core, and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. TCIs aim to aid the interpretation of scores for individual patients at a single point in time. They intend to indicate whether a symptom or functional health limitation is of clinical relevance, i.e., requires to be discussed with healthcare professionals. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to describe the uptake of TCIs by the research community and discuss opportunities and threats in their application to PRO data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science databases that contained search terms on the respective PRO measures and TCIs. Additionally, we performed a hand search on citations of the original TCI articles on Google Scholar. Articles were included if they applied TCIs in the analysis or the interpretation of PRO data or in clinical practice. Data concerning the study design, the use of TCIs, the terminology, and the application of TCIs were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 512 articles were identified. After title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction was performed on 117 of these articles. Most articles reported on longitudinal-observational (n = 55) or cross-sectional observational (n = 49) studies, whereby the most frequent cancer populations having mixed diagnoses (n = 25), breast cancer (n = 23), haematological malignancies (n = 18), or colorectal cancer (n = 11). Various terms were used to refer to the concept of TCIs, with \\\"thresholds for clinical importance\\\" being the most frequently used term (n = 63; 50.8%). Strikingly, 41 of the 117 articles (35.0%) reported that TCIs were applied to group-level data (e.g. mean scores), which is a clearly unintended application of the TCIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TCIs are frequently used by the research community and thus enhanced the interpretability of PRO data in oncology. While most studies correctly applied TCIs in their analysis and interpretation, further guidance and clarification on their use are required. This article aims to contribute to this endeavour.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12980,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12135517/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02387-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02387-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:临床重要性阈值(tci)以前是为癌症特异性患者报告结果(PRO)测量EORTC QLQ- c30、EORTC QLQ CAT Core和EORTC QLQ- c15 - pal建立的。tci旨在帮助解释单个患者在单个时间点的评分。他们的目的是表明症状或功能性健康限制是否具有临床相关性,即是否需要与医疗保健专业人员讨论。在这篇系统的范围综述中,我们旨在描述研究社区对tci的吸收,并讨论将其应用于PRO数据的机会和威胁。方法:我们系统地检索PubMed和Web of Science数据库,其中包含有关PRO测量和tci的搜索词。此外,我们对b谷歌Scholar上原始TCI文章的引用进行了手动搜索。在分析或解释PRO数据或临床实践中应用tci的文章被纳入。提取有关研究设计、tci使用、术语和tci应用的数据。结果:共鉴定出512篇文献。在标题、摘要和全文筛选后,对其中117篇文章进行数据提取。大多数文章报道了纵向观察性(n = 55)或横断面观察性(n = 49)研究,其中最常见的癌症人群有混合诊断(n = 25),乳腺癌(n = 23),血液恶性肿瘤(n = 18)或结直肠癌(n = 11)。不同的术语被用来指代tci的概念,其中“临床重要性阈值”是最常用的术语(n = 63;50.8%)。引人注目的是,117篇文章中有41篇(35.0%)报道了tci应用于组级数据(例如平均分数),这显然是tci的意外应用。结论:tci经常被研究界使用,从而提高了肿瘤PRO数据的可解释性。虽然大多数研究在分析和解释中正确地应用了技术指标,但需要对其使用进行进一步的指导和澄清。本文旨在为这一努力作出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The current use and application of thresholds for clinical importance of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the EORTC CAT core and the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL- a systematic scoping review.

Background: Thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs) were previously established for the cancer-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measures EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ CAT Core, and EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL. TCIs aim to aid the interpretation of scores for individual patients at a single point in time. They intend to indicate whether a symptom or functional health limitation is of clinical relevance, i.e., requires to be discussed with healthcare professionals. In this systematic scoping review, we aimed to describe the uptake of TCIs by the research community and discuss opportunities and threats in their application to PRO data.

Methods: We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science databases that contained search terms on the respective PRO measures and TCIs. Additionally, we performed a hand search on citations of the original TCI articles on Google Scholar. Articles were included if they applied TCIs in the analysis or the interpretation of PRO data or in clinical practice. Data concerning the study design, the use of TCIs, the terminology, and the application of TCIs were extracted.

Results: A total of 512 articles were identified. After title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction was performed on 117 of these articles. Most articles reported on longitudinal-observational (n = 55) or cross-sectional observational (n = 49) studies, whereby the most frequent cancer populations having mixed diagnoses (n = 25), breast cancer (n = 23), haematological malignancies (n = 18), or colorectal cancer (n = 11). Various terms were used to refer to the concept of TCIs, with "thresholds for clinical importance" being the most frequently used term (n = 63; 50.8%). Strikingly, 41 of the 117 articles (35.0%) reported that TCIs were applied to group-level data (e.g. mean scores), which is a clearly unintended application of the TCIs.

Conclusion: TCIs are frequently used by the research community and thus enhanced the interpretability of PRO data in oncology. While most studies correctly applied TCIs in their analysis and interpretation, further guidance and clarification on their use are required. This article aims to contribute to this endeavour.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.80%
发文量
154
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信