Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30

Prostate cancer patients’ quality of life assessments across the primary treatment trajectory: ‘True’ change or response shift?

“…For the followup assessments, questionnaires were sent to the patients' homes and prepaid return envelopes were provided. For evaluating the clinical relevance of changes between both measurements, we used the guidelines for interpreting change scores of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for longitudinal differences [12] referring to thresholds of small improvements/deteriorations and no differences (table 4 in [12]). Of note, no overall summary scale is available for the EORTC QLQ-C30.…”

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

“…В связи с этим важно, чтобы благоприят-ным показателям ВБП, отмеченным в клинических исследо-ваниях, сопутствовали лучший контроль над симптомами, меньшее число связанных с проводимой терапией побоч-ных эффектов и лучшее качество жизни [9,13].…”

A high level of fatigue among long-term survivors of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: results from the longitudinal population-based PROFILES registry in the south of the Netherlands

“…P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Clinically relevant differences were determined using evidence-based guidelines for the interpretation of EORTC QLQ-C30 scores between groups 30 and changes in scores 31 and Norman's 'rule of thumb' was used for the FAS whereby a ± 0.5 SD difference indicates a threshold of discriminating change in HRQOL scores. 32 Differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics between respondents and non-respondents or patients with unverifiable addresses and patients who completed one or two questionnaires were compared with a chi-square or t-tests, where appropriate.…”

“…13,15,17,20 Numerous patients in our study showed large improvements (19-23%) or deteriorations (22-28%) within 1 year, which both indicate a clinically relevant change. 31 However, it is too soon to determine whether this can be defined as an actual change, due to regression to the mean. A longer follow-up time is needed to identify whether these differences can be considered as real changes or fluctuations over time.…”