{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022175290390707498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012671594508975714, 'mean_word_length': 5.405405405405405, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mapping algorithms from QLQ-C30 to EQ-5D utilities: no firm ground to stand on yet

Aim: Over the last years several mapping or cross-walking algorithms for deriving utilities from QLQ-C30 scores have been published. However their external predictive accuracy has not yet been systematically compared. Methods: We tested the external validity of previously published mapping algorithms to transform the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire responses to EQ-5D derived Utilities. Results: When applied to different data sets, the currently published mapping showed a large variation between algorithms of the values of the mapped utilities, a low accuracy of the mapping compared to the observed EQ-5D utilities and no consistent performance between competing algorithms. Discussion: Therefore direct mapping from QLQ-C30 profiles to EQ-5D utilities using published algorithms should be viewed cautiously.