Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries

Janssen, Mathieu F.; Bonsel, Gouke J.; Luo, Nan

doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8

Cited by 259 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

192

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We suggest that the Devlin et al distribution is a function of both a response shift and a change in the valuation system, and therefore is similar to the findings reported by Hernandez Alava et al [26] when exploring the impact of switching from the EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L Devlin et al tariff on cost-effectiveness results. Overall, the distributional findings in this study validate those previously reported by Mulhern et al [25] on a smaller sample for England and those reported by Janssen et al [22] for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L values across seven countries. Given the recent NICE position statement recommending the use of the van Hout et al mapping algorithm for studies that have collected 5L data, we suggest the implications of our results for cost-effectiveness analysis conducted in the near future could be similar (but smaller in magnitude) to those outlined by Hernandez Alava et al [26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…A similar phenomenon for the EQ-5D-3L, although not noted in the current literature, is the tendency for respondents to report 'some problems' in any or all health domains, despite also reporting having no ongoing health conditions. This mismatch could be a consequence of the number of levels within the EQ-5D-3L forcing, for those close to full health with minor ailments, a choice between some problems or no problems [22]. In our sample of EQ-5D-5L respondents reporting no conditions, we observed a sizeable fall in those selecting 'some problems' versus the EQ-5D-3L, with a large proportion instead selecting 'slight problems'.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L

Thompson

Turner

2020

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The EQ-5D-3L (3L) and EQ-5D-5L (5L) are both frequently used measures of health status. Previous studies have found the EQ-5D-5L to have superior measurement properties but no study has compared the two measures in a large general population survey using matched respondents. Methods Using data from the GP Patient Survey, coarsened exact matching was used to match individuals completing the 3L in 2011 with those completing the 5L in 2012. Measurement properties were assessed for a general population and multimorbid population (chronic conditions ≥ 2), with ceiling effects, informativity and distribution of response compared. Changes in the direction of response, as well as the impact on utility distributions, were quantified. Results Matching resulted in a cohort of 1, 023,218 respondents (2011: 511,609; 2012: 511,609) for analysis. Ceiling effects for the 5L were lower than the 3L (43.8% vs. 54.4%). The 5L had improved informativity and broader spread of responses than the 3L (5L top 50 profiles: 77.4% vs. 3L: 98.8%). Overall, there was an upwards shift in utility values for the 5L versus the 3L as respondents using the 5L reported ill health more frequently but with less severity. Measurement improvements and effects on utility values were more pronounced for the multimorbid population. Conclusion The 5L had superior measurement properties than the 3L and should be preferred in general population surveys and for use in individuals with multimorbidity. At increasing levels of morbidity, the 5L is currently associated with higher utility values than the 3L. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https ://doi.The EQ-5D-5L has superior measurement properties to the EQ-5D-3L and should be preferred in general population and multimorbid populations.The EQ-5D-5L leads respondents to report more illhealth. However, it is less severe than when using the EQ-5D-3L.For higher-levels of multimorbidity, use of the EQ-5D-5L in England will currently lead to higher utility values than the EQ-5D-3L, irrespective of the tariff used.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L

Thompson

Turner

2020

PharmacoEconomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although two recent studies in Greece demonstrated marginal to moderate better discriminatory power of 5 L compared to 3 L [3,4]. Other studies found that 3 L performed better especially in discriminating between healthy and unhealthy populations [5][6][7][8][9]. One possible reason for the mixed results could be that the relative performance of 3 L and 5 L is population specific.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3 L and the EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population

You

Liu

Yang

et al. 2020

Health Qual Life Outcomes

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study was conducted to compare the validity and discriminative power of both the EQ-5D-3 L and EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population with multiple chronic and acute conditions. Methods: A total of 648 retired people from China (mean ± standard deviation: 73.3 ± 6.4 years; male: 55.7%) were recruited and randomized to complete the 3 L or 5 L questionnaire. The 3 L and 5 L were compared in terms of distribution properties, ceiling effects, informativity, validity and discriminatory performance. Convergent validity between the 3 L and 5 L was tested by spearman's rank-order correlation. Discriminatory power was conducted by relative efficiency as assessed by the F statistics. Results: Most participants answered to "no problems" on both versions of EQ-5D. The 5 L trended towards a slightly lower ceiling compared with the 3 L. The Shannon index improved with the 5 L while the Shannon's Evenness index tended to be similar. Convergent validity was confirmed by the moderate to strong correlation for both 3 L and 5 L. Relative efficiency suggested that 5 L had a higher absolute discriminatory power than the 3 L version in terms of the presence conditions, especially for osteoporosis and metabolic syndrome. Conclusions: Both the 3 L and 5 L are demonstrated to be valid based HRQoL instruments in Chinese elderly population. The 5 L system may be preferable to the 3 L, as it demonstrated superior performance with respect to lower ceiling effect and better discriminatory power. Further research is needed to examine the responsiveness of the two EQ-5D instruments in this population.

show abstract

“…2 The EQ-5D-5L has shown improved measurement properties, including greater discrimination among known groups and reduced ceiling effects compared with the EQ-5D-3L. [3][4][5] In the United States, there is renewed interest in value frameworks that focus on the trade-offs between potential benefits and harms of treatment. [6][7][8][9] Despite legislation against it as a consideration in federal payer reimbursement decisions, 10 cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) continues to be an important metric for evaluating the value of healthcare interventions in the United States, 8,11,12 and the EQ-5D features prominently as a preference-based measure of health for such evaluations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TObjective: To derive a US-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire using an international, standardized protocol developed by the EuroQol Group.Methods: Respondents from the US adult population were quota-sampled on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and race. Trained interviewers guided participants in completing composite time trade-off (cTTO) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) tasks using the EuroQol Valuation Technology software and routine quality control measures. Data were modeled using a Tobit model for cTTO data, a mixed logit model for DCE data, and a hybrid model that combined cTTO and DCE data. Model performance was compared on the basis of logical ordering of coefficients, statistical significance, parsimony, and theoretical considerations.Results: Of 1134 respondents, 1062, 1099, and 1102 respondents provided useable cTTO, DCE, and cTTO or DCE responses, respectively, on the basis of quality control criteria and interviewer judgment. Respondent demographic characteristics and health status were similar to the 2015 US Census. The Tobit model was selected as the preferred model to generate the value set. Values ranged from 20.573 (55 555) to 1 (11111), with 20% of all predicted health states scores less than 0 (ie, worse than dead). Conclusions:A societal value set for the EQ-5D-5L was developed that can be used for economic evaluations and decision making in US health systems. The internationally established, standardized protocol used to develop this US-based value set was recommended by the EuroQol Group and can facilitate cross-country comparisons.

show abstract

Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries

Cited by 259 publications

References 57 publications

A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L

A Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L

Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3 L and the EQ-5D-5 L in an elderly Chinese population

United States Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States Using an International Protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About