What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess the evidence on the validity and responsiveness of five commonly used preference-based instruments, the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL, by undertaking a review of reviews.MethodsFour databases were investigated using a strategy refined through a highly sensitive filter for systematic reviews. References were screened and a search for grey literature was performed. Identified citations were scrutinized against pre-defined eligibility criteria and data were extracted using a customized extraction template. Evidence on known group validity, convergent validity and responsiveness was extracted and reviewed by narrative synthesis. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a modified version of the AMSTAR checklist.ResultsThirty reviews were included, sixteen of which were of excellent or good quality. The body of evidence, covering more than 180 studies, was heavily skewed towards EQ-5D, with significantly fewer studies investigating HUI3 and SF-6D, and very few the 15D and AQoL. There was also lack of head-to-head comparisons between GPBMs and the tests reported by the reviews were often weak. Where there was evidence, EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI3, 15D and AQoL seemed generally valid and responsive instruments, although not for all conditions. Evidence was not consistently reported across reviews.ConclusionsAlthough generally valid, EQ-5D, SF-6D and HUI3 suffer from some problems and perform inconsistently in some populations. The lack of head-to-head comparisons and the poor reporting impedes the comparative assessment of the performance of GPBMs. This highlights the need for large comparative studies designed to test instruments’ performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10198-017-0902-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Does the EQ-5D usual activities dimension measure what it intends to measure? The relative importance of work, study, housework, family or leisure activities

“…Lin et al [11] also showed that UA dimension correlated strongly with subscales on the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), such as physical function, fatigue, and satisfaction with social roles. It has also been suggested that interpersonal relationships might be important as a bolt-on dimension [12,13].…”

Measurement Properties of Commonly Used Generic Preference-Based Measures in East and South-East Asia: A Systematic Review

“…Satisfactory construct validity and responsiveness were also reported in past systematic reviews of EQ-5D in musculoskeletal [91], schizophrenia [92], skin [93], metabolic [94,95], and respiratory diseases [96]. However, the current finding that EQ-5D is valid and responsive for patients with eye and heart diseases is at odds with the finding from a systematic review [95] that was mainly based on evidence from European populations. The contradictory findings from the two systematic reviews suggest that the measurement properties of PBMs might vary from region to region.…”

Doxycycline Added to Prednisolone in Outpatient-Treated Acute Exacerbations of COPD: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial

“…Also, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations, which is generally considered the most valid method to account for missing data in economic evaluations [35,36]. Third, while the EQ-5D-3L is generally considered valid for use in COPD populations [26], evidence also exist that the measure might miss important generic and specific items of relevance for COPD populations, among which are breathing [38], cough and dyspnoea [39,40]. Moreover, the EQ-5D-3L was measured at month 1 after randomisation, month 3 and every 3 months thereafter until month 24.…”

“…Utility values were obtained using the Dutch version of the EQ-5D-3L with the Dutch tariff [24]. The EQ-5D-3L was chosen as it is the most widely used measure for economic evaluations worldwide [25] and it has been deemed valid for COPD populations [26].…”