Comparing the EORTC QLQ-LC13, EORTC QLQ-LC29, and the FACT-L for assessment of quality of life in patients with lung cancer - an updated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Two commonly used quality of life (QoL) questionnaires in lung cancer patients are the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L). More recently, the EORTC QLQ-LC29 was developed. This systematic review compares the EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13 and FACT-L in terms of the content, validity and psychometric properties in assessing the QoL of lung cancer patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Fourteen studies were included. The EORTC QLQ-LC29 is a 29-item scale that serves as an update of the EORTC QLQ-LC13 to include symptoms from surgery and new targeted therapies. It shows validity, high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity. The FACT-L continues to assess general quality of life and lung cancer-specific symptoms. SUMMARY: The EORTC QLQ-LC29, EORTC QLQ-LC13, and FACT-L were reviewed to assess their validity in measuring QoL of lung cancer patients. All were found to be sufficiently validated, The choice of which to use should depend on the primary goals of the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".