Table 4.
Main recalibration profiles highlighted by a multiple correspondence analysis performed on the EORTC QLQ-C30
| Dimension (items) | Time points | N | Percentage of recalibration (number of patients) | Recalibration category 1 to category 2 | Recalibration category 2 to category 1 | Recalibration category 3 to category 4 | Recalibration category 4 to category 3 | Categories 3 and 4 dispersed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical functioning |
T1 - T2_Ra |
100 |
37% (272) |
Q1-Q5 |
Q1-Q5 |
|
|
Q1-Q5 |
| (Q1, Q5) |
T1 - T3_Rb |
139 |
51% (274) |
Q1-Q5 |
Q1-Q5 |
|
|
Q1-Q5 |
| |
T3 - T4_Rc |
201 |
76% (266) |
Q1-Q5 |
Q1-Q5 |
|
|
Q1-Q5 |
| Role functioning |
T1 - T2_R |
84 |
31% (272) |
Q6, Q7 |
Q6, Q7 |
|
|
Q6, Q7 |
| (Q6-Q7) |
T1 - T3_R |
118 |
43% (274) |
Q6, Q7 |
Q6, Q7 |
Q6, Q7 |
Q6, Q7 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
164 |
63% (261) |
Q6, Q7 |
Q6, Q7 |
|
|
Q6, Q7 |
| Emotional functioning |
T1 - T2_R |
180 |
68% (263) |
Q21-Q24 |
Q21-Q24 |
|
|
|
| (Q21-Q24) |
T1 - T3_R |
208 |
79% (263) |
Q21-Q24 |
Q21-Q24 |
|
|
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
196 |
77% (255) |
Q21-Q24 |
Q21-Q24 |
|
|
Q21-Q24 |
| Cognitive functioning |
T1 - T2_R |
103 |
39% (266) |
Q20, Q25 |
|
|
|
|
| (Q20, Q25) |
T1 - T3_R |
129 |
48% (268) |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
| |
T3 - T4_R |
130 |
51% (256) |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
Q20, Q25 |
|
| Social functioning |
T1 - T2_R |
75 |
29% (260) |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
|
|
Q26, Q27 |
| (Q26, Q27) |
T1 - T3_R |
101 |
38% (268) |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
142 |
56% (255) |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
Q26, Q27 |
| Fatigue |
T1 - T2_R |
141 |
54% (259) |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
|
|
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
| (Q10, Q12, Q18) |
T1 - T3_R |
160 |
61% (261) |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q12 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
| |
T3 - T4_R |
183 |
73% (251) |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
|
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
Q10, Q12, Q18 |
| Nausea and vomiting |
T1 - T2_R |
37 |
13% (280) |
Q14 |
Q14, Q15 |
|
|
Q14, Q15 |
| (Q14, Q15) |
T1 - T3_R |
65 |
24% (275) |
Q14 |
Q14 |
|
Q14 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
98 |
37% (265) |
Q14 |
Q14 |
|
|
|
| Pain |
T1 - T2_R |
96 |
36% (267) |
Q9 |
Q9 |
|
|
Q9, Q19 |
| (Q9, Q19) |
T1 - T3_R |
124 |
46% (268) |
Q9, Q19 |
Q9, Q19 |
|
|
Q9, Q19 |
| |
T3 - T4_R |
148 |
58% (253) |
Q9, Q19 |
Q9, Q19 |
|
Q9, Q19 |
|
| Insomnia |
T1 - T2_R |
115 |
42% (277) |
Q11 |
Q11 |
|
Q11 |
|
| (Q8) |
T1 - T3_R |
135 |
49% (274) |
Q11 |
Q11 |
Q11 |
Q11 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
147 |
55% (266) |
Q11 |
Q11 |
Q11 |
Q11 |
|
| Dyspnea |
T1 - T2_R |
50 |
18% (280) |
Q8 |
Q8 |
|
Q8 |
|
| (Q11) |
T1 - T3_R |
55 |
20% (279) |
Q8 |
Q8 |
Q8 |
Q8 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
94 |
35% (269) |
Q8 |
Q8 |
Q8 |
Q8 |
|
| Appetite loss |
T1 - T2_R |
61 |
22% (280) |
Q13 |
Q13 |
|
Q13 |
|
| (Q13) |
T1 - T3_R |
85 |
30% (280) |
Q13 |
Q13 |
|
Q13 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
90 |
34% (267) |
Q13 |
Q13 |
|
Q13 |
|
| Constipation |
T1 - T2_R |
71 |
26% (276) |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
|
| (Q16) |
T1 - T3_R |
89 |
32% (277) |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
93 |
35% (264) |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
Q16 |
|
| Diarrhea |
T1 - T2_R |
39 |
14% (278) |
Q17 |
Q17 |
|
|
|
| (Q17) |
T1 - T3_R |
64 |
23% (277) |
Q17 |
Q17 |
|
|
|
| |
T3 - T4_R |
61 |
24% (263) |
Q17 |
Q17 |
|
Q17 |
|
| Financial difficulties |
T1 - T2_R |
22 |
8% (264) |
Q28 |
Q28 |
|
|
|
| (Q28) |
T1 - T3_R |
33 |
12% (269) |
Q28 |
Q28 |
|
Q28 |
|
| T3 - T4_R | 47 | 18% (264) | Q28 | Q28 | Q28 |
Only patients with a recalibration of 5-point at least between a pre-test and a then-test measure are incorporated in these analyses. Items with observed recalibration are listed.
aT1 → T2_R: comparison of baseline HRQoL assessment and retrospective measure performed after surgery.
bT1 → T3_R: comparison of baseline HRQoL assessment and retrospective measure performed three months later.
cT3 → T4_R: comparison of HRQoL assessment at three months and retrospective measure performed three months later.
As example, 100 patients presented a significant recalibration of physical functioning among the 272 patients with all the five items of the dimension answered at both measurement time. The graph representing the response categories highlight some recalibration profile:
- patients who had chosen response category 1 at the prospective measurement time for all the 5 items and who had chosen response category 2 to the same items at the retrospective measurement time.
- patients who had chosen response category 2 at the prospective measurement time for all the 5 items and who had chosen response category 1 to the same items at the retrospective measurement time.
- no recalibration profile is highlighted for response categories 3 and 4 and few patients had chosen these categories of response (these response categories are dispersed).