A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients

Yu, Hongjuan; Zeng, Xueyun; Sui, Mingjie; Li, Rui; Tan, Rachel Lee-Yin; Yang, Jian; Huang, Weidong; Luo, Nan

doi:10.1007/s11136-020-02644-w

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is recommended that these measurement criteria are considered in future testing of the EQ-5D-5L in LBP patient populations. The current findings, together with those from other studies that included LBP patients [15,16] and other populations [9,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30], indicate that the results of further testing for measurement properties including responsiveness to change, will favour the 5L.…”

Section: Study Strengths and Limitationssupporting

confidence: 60%

“…Finally, correlations < 0.30 were expected for instrument scores assessing weakly related or unrelated constructs: EQ-5D anxiety/ depression with Pain-VAS scores. Furthermore, given the performance of the 5L relative to the 3L in other populations [9,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30], it was hypothesized that compared to those for the 3L, the 5L scores would have slightly higher correlations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The review included patient populations that were not part of a long-term follow-up and hence larger differences in ceiling effects might be expected compared to the results reported here. More recent comparisons across diverse illness groups have found statistically significant reductions in ceiling effects for the 5L relative to the 3L [22,[24][25][26]28], with the pain/discomfort dimension often being the largest and ranging from 5 to 17% for Crohn's disease [22] and older people with moderate to high levels of comorbidity [25] respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following a systematic review that included 25 reports of concurrent or health-to-head comparisons of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in diverse illness and healthy populations, it was found that the 5L showed similar or better measurement properties [9]. Updated systematic searches of PubMed lend further support to this finding based on a further twelve concurrent evaluations of data quality and measurement properties including validity and responsiveness to change, again in diverse illness groups and the general population [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. It is important that the 5L is further evaluated for measurement properties in LBP [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The study reported here is the first to consider the concurrent measurement properties of the two versions of the EQ-5D, administered at long-term follow-up, to patients with severe LBP randomized to rehabilitation or surgery with disc prostheses [14,32]. The two versions are evaluated according to recognized measurement criteria for PROMs including those that have been used in previous comparisons of the 3L and 5L [9,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of the EQ-5D-3L and 5L versions in low back pain patients

Garratt

Furunes

Hellum

et al. 2021

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The EuroQol EQ-5D is one of the most widely researched and applied patient-reported outcome measures worldwide. The original EQ-5D-3L and more recent EQ-5D-5L include three and five response categories respectively. Evidence from healthy and sick populations shows that the additional two response categories improve measurement properties but there has not been a concurrent comparison of the two versions in patients with low back pain (LBP). Methods LBP patients taking part in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of lumbar total disc replacement and conservative treatment completed the EQ-5D-3L and 5L in an eight-year follow-up questionnaire. The 3L and 5L were assessed for aspects of data quality including missing data, floor and ceiling effects, response consistency, and based on a priori hypotheses, associations with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Pain-Visual Analogue Scales and Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-25). Results At the eight-year follow-up, 151 (87%) patients were available and 146 completed both the 3L and 5L. Levels of missing data were the same for the two versions. Compared to the EQ-5D-5L, the 3L had significantly higher floor (pain discomfort) and ceiling effects (mobility, self-care, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression). For these patients the EQ-5D-5L described 73 health states compared to 28 for the 3L. Shannon’s indices showed the 5L outperformed the 3L in tests of classification efficiency. Correlations with the ODI, Pain-VAS and HSCL-25 were largely as hypothesized, the 5L having slightly higher correlations than the 3L. Conclusion The EQ-5D assesses important aspect of health in LBP patients and the 5L improves upon the 3L in this respect. The EQ-5D-5L is recommended in preference to the 3L version, however, further testing in other back pain populations together with additional measurement properties, including responsiveness to change, is recommended. Trial registration: retrospectively registered: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01704677.

show abstract