Table 3.

Overview of the methodological quality of HRQoL tools in primary liver cancer

	Psychometric properties
References	Test–retest reliability	Internal consistency	Content validity	Criterion validity	Construct validity	Responsiveness	Acceptability	Feasibility	Floor/ceiling effects	Interpretability
Generic PROMs
LASA** by Bernhard (Koeberle et al.)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
NHP	0	+ (Bianchi 2003)	0	0	0	0	+ (Bianchi 2003)	+ (Bianchi 2003)	0	+
SF-8	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
SF-12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
SF-36	+ (Ünal 2001*)	+ (Bayliss 1998*, Ünal 2001*, Zhou 2013*, Casanovas Taltavull 2015*)	0	0	+ (Bayliss 1998*, Ünal 2001*, Zhou 2013*)	0	+ (Bayliss 1998*, Ünal 2001*, Zhou 2013*)	+ (Ünal 2001*)	− (Bayliss 1998*, Zhou 2013*); ± (Ünal 2001*)	+
Questionnaire by Abdelbary	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Questionnaire by Cowawintaweewat	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Questionnaire by Lv	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Questionnaire by Tanabe	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
WHOQoL-BREF	0	+ (Lin 2018*, Lee 2007)	0	0	± (Lin 2018*)	0	+	+	0	+
Cancer specific PROMs
EORTC QLQ-C30	0	+ (Lee 2007)	0	0	0	0	+	+	0	+
FACT-G	+ (Yount 2002*, Zhu 2008*)	+ (Yount 2002*, Zhu 2008*)	+ (Cella 1993*)	+ (Zhu 2008*)	0	0	+	+	0	+
FLIC	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Patient Benefit Form	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Patient DATA Form	0	0	0	± (Nowak 2008, Cebon 2006)	+ (Nowak 2008)	− (Nowak 2008)	± (Nowak 2008, Cebon 2006)	+	− (Nowak 2008)	+
Priestman & Baum	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	±
Spitzer QoL Index	0	0	0	0	0	0	+ (Barbare 2005, Wiedmann 2004)	+ (Berr 2000, Doffoël 2008, Barbare 2005)	0	+
Cancer–type-specific PROMs
DDQ-15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
EORTC QLQ-HCC18	+ (Chie 2012, Chie 2015, Mikoshiba 2012)	± (Mikoshiba 2012, Chie 2012)	+ (Blazeby 2004*)	0	± (Mikoshiba 2012; Chie 2012, Chie 2015)	± (Chie 2012, Chie 2015)	+ (Meier 2015, Mikoshiba 2012, Fan 2013)	+ (Chie 2012, Chie 2015, Fan 2013, Meier 2015)	± (Meier 2015, Chien 2015)	+
FACT-Hep	+ (Heffernan 2002, Yount 2002*, Zhu 2008)	+ (Heffernan 2002, Steel 2006, Mikoshiba 2012)	+ (Heffernan 2002)	+ (Heffernan 2002; Zhu 2008)	+ (Heffernan 2002, Zhu 2008, Mikoshiba 2012)	+ (Steel 2006, Zhang 2015) ± (Nowak 2008)	± (Nowak 2008); + (Zhang 2015; Steel 2007; Huang 2014)	+	0	+
NIDDK-QA	+ (Kim 2000*)	+ (Kim 2000*)	± (Gross 1999*)	+ (Kim 2000*)	+ (Kim 2000*)	+ (Kim 2000*)	0	0	0	+
QOL-LC	+ (Wan 2010*)	+ (Wan 2010*)	± (Wan 2010*)	- (Wan 2010*)	+ (Wan 2010*)	+ (Wan 2010*)	+ (Wan 2010*)	+	+ (Ye 2016)	+
Questionnaire by Gill	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Questionnaire by Ueno	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	+
Utility based PROMs
EQ-5D	± (Ünal 2001*)	0	0	+ (Krabbe 2003*)	0	+ (Unal 2001*, Chau 2017)	+ (Ünal 2001*, Chow 2014, Chau 2017)	+	± (Ünal 2001*)	+

^*Publications were identified via additional search in Pubmed. These studies were not solely conducted HCC/CCA patient populations but contain closely related patient populations like patients with chronic liver disease or extrahepatic bile duct tumours

0 = not reported (no evaluation completed),—= evidence not in favour, ±  = weak evidence, +  = evidence in favour

Gross 1999 + Kim 2000: development of questionnaire and validation of psychometric properties in patients with cholestatic liver disease/liver transplantation

^**linear analogue-self assessment

Marked with * are studies that investigate psychometric properties in closely related patient cohorts (not only containing HCC/CCA patients). Rating: 0 no data reported;—evidence not in favour; + evidence in favour; ± conflicting evidence (rating scale adapted from [4, 5])