Literature DB >> 29936066

The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Morten Aa Petersen1, Neil K Aaronson2, Juan I Arraras3, Wei-Chu Chie4, Thierry Conroy5, Anna Costantini6, Linda Dirven7, Peter Fayers8, Eva-Maria Gamper9, Johannes M Giesinger9, Esther J J Habets10, Eva Hammerlid11, Jorunn Helbostad12, Marianne J Hjermstad13, Bernhard Holzner9, Colin Johnson14, Georg Kemmler9, Madeleine T King15, Stein Kaasa16, Jon H Loge17, Jaap C Reijneveld18, Susanne Singer19, Martin J B Taphoorn7, Lise H Thamsborg20, Krzysztof A Tomaszewski21, Galina Velikova22, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw23, Teresa Young24, Mogens Groenvold25.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To optimise measurement precision, relevance to patients and flexibility, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should ideally be adapted to the individual patient/study while retaining direct comparability of scores across patients/studies. This is achievable using item banks and computerised adaptive tests (CATs). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) is one of the most widely used PROMs in cancer research and clinical practice. Here we provide an overview of the research program to develop CAT versions of the QLQ-C30's 14 functional and symptom domains.
METHODS: The EORTC Quality of Life Group's strategy for developing CAT item banks consists of: literature search to identify potential candidate items; formulation of new items compatible with the QLQ-C30 item style; expert evaluations and patient interviews; field-testing and psychometric analyses, including factor analysis, item response theory calibration and simulation of measurement properties. In addition, software for setting up, running and scoring CAT has been developed.
RESULTS: Across eight rounds of data collections, 9782 patients were recruited from 12 countries for the field-testing. The four phases of development resulted in a total of 260 unique items across the 14 domains. Each item bank consists of 7-34 items. Psychometric evaluations indicated higher measurement precision and increased statistical power of the CAT measures compared to the QLQ-C30 scales. Using CAT, sample size requirements may be reduced by approximately 20-35% on average without loss of power.
CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC CAT Core represents a more precise, powerful and flexible measurement system than the QLQ-C30. It is currently being validated in a large independent, international sample of cancer patients.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computerized adaptive test; EORTC QLQ-C30; Health related quality of life; Item banking; Item development; Item response theory; Patient-reported outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29936066     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.04.016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  17 in total

1.  A comparison of computer adaptive tests (CATs) and short forms in terms of accuracy and number of items administrated using PROMIS profile.

Authors:  Eisuke Segawa; Benjamin Schalet; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life cancer survivorship core questionnaire.

Authors:  Marieke van Leeuwen; Jacobien M Kieffer; Teresa E Young; Maria Antonietta Annunziata; Volker Arndt; Juan Ignacio Arraras; Didier Autran; Hira Bani Hani; Manas Chakrabarti; Olivier Chinot; Juhee Cho; Rene Aloisio da Costa Vieira; Anne-Sophie Darlington; Philip R Debruyne; Linda Dirven; Daniela Doege; Yannick Eller; Martin Eichler; Nanna Fridriksdottir; Ioannis Gioulbasanis; Eva Hammerlid; Mieke van Hemelrijck; Silke Hermann; Olga Husson; Michael Jefford; Christoffer Johansen; Trille Kristina Kjaer; Meropi Kontogianni; Pernilla Lagergren; Emma Lidington; Karolina Lisy; Ofir Morag; Andy Nordin; Amal S H Al Omari; Andrea Pace; Silvia De Padova; Duska Petranovia; Monica Pinto; John Ramage; Elke Rammant; Jaap Reijneveld; Samantha Serpentini; Sam Sodergren; Vassilios Vassiliou; Irma Verdonck-de Leeuw; Ingvild Vistad; Teresa Young; Neil K Aaronson; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 4.442

Review 3.  Cancer survivorship: an integral part of Europe's research agenda.

Authors:  Pernilla Lagergren; Anna Schandl; Neil K Aaronson; Hans-Olov Adami; Francesco de Lorenzo; Louis Denis; Sara Faithfull; Lifang Liu; Franḉoise Meunier; Cornelia Ulrich
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 6.603

4.  Moving from clinician-defined to patient-reported outcome measures for survivors of high-grade glioma.

Authors:  Lena Rosenlund; Eskil Degsell; Asgeir Store Jakola
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2019-08-23

5.  Virtual reality-based relaxation for enhancement of perioperative well-being and quality of life: protocol for a randomised pilot trial.

Authors:  Matthias Christian Schrempf; Julian Quirin Petzold; Hugo Vachon; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Johanna Gutschon; Sebastian Wolf; Florian Sommer; Marcus Murnauer; Matthias Anthuber
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL) in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: What Is Different Compared to Healthy Women?

Authors:  Melisa Guelhan Inci; Rolf Richter; Kathrin Heise; Ricarda Dukatz; Hannah Woopen; Jalid Sehouli
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 7.  Measuring Quality of Life Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Real-World Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients: The Need for a Standardized Approach.

Authors:  Marloes E Clarijs; Jacob Thurell; Friedrich Kühn; Carin A Uyl-de Groot; Elham Hedayati; Maria M Karsten; Agnes Jager; Linetta B Koppert
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 6.639

8.  ASO Author Reflections: The Magic of Clinical Research-The Student-Led PATRONUS Study Unveils Two Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use in Surgical Oncology.

Authors:  André L Mihaljevic
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 9.  Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Imogen Ramsey; Marion Eckert; Amanda D Hutchinson; Julie Marker; Nadia Corsini
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2020-09-15

10.  Keys to successful implementation of routine symptom monitoring in head and neck oncology with "Healthcare Monitor" and patients' perspectives of quality of care.

Authors:  Emilie A C Dronkers; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Egge F van der Poel; Aniel Sewnaik; Marinella P J Offerman
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2020-08-18       Impact factor: 3.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.