INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether the sensitivity of the generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) EQ-5D summary measure (or index) to detect changes over time in a clinical setting is comparable with that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire. METHODS: Patients with liver metastases (n = 75) filled out the five domains of the EQ-5D self-classifier, the EQ VAS, and the EORTC QLQ C-30 (a disease-specific (cancer) HRQoL questionnaire). The HRQoL instruments were completed before intervention, and 1/2 month and 3 and 6 months after intervention. Three analyses were performed. First, the EQ-5D index (based on self-classification) was compared to the EQ VAS. Second, the EQ-5D domains were compared to corresponding EORTC QLQ C-30 scales. Third, EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were compared with the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Effect size was chosen as the metric of responsiveness. RESULTS: The EQ-5D index was slightly less responsive than the EQ VAS. Overall, the responsiveness of the EQ-SD index and EQ VAS was equal to the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. CONCLUSION: Despite its generic principle and the apparent crudeness of its framework, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D proved to be comparable to that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire in this specific clinical setting.
INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether the sensitivity of the generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) EQ-5D summary measure (or index) to detect changes over time in a clinical setting is comparable with that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire. METHODS:Patients with liver metastases (n = 75) filled out the five domains of the EQ-5D self-classifier, the EQ VAS, and the EORTC QLQ C-30 (a disease-specific (cancer) HRQoL questionnaire). The HRQoL instruments were completed before intervention, and 1/2 month and 3 and 6 months after intervention. Three analyses were performed. First, the EQ-5D index (based on self-classification) was compared to the EQ VAS. Second, the EQ-5D domains were compared to corresponding EORTC QLQ C-30 scales. Third, EQ-5D index and EQ VAS were compared with the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. Effect size was chosen as the metric of responsiveness. RESULTS: The EQ-5D index was slightly less responsive than the EQ VAS. Overall, the responsiveness of the EQ-SD index and EQ VAS was equal to the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health-status scale. CONCLUSION: Despite its generic principle and the apparent crudeness of its framework, the responsiveness of the EQ-5D proved to be comparable to that of a disease-specific HRQoL questionnaire in this specific clinical setting.
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Bohdan Nosyk; Huiying Sun; Nick Bansback; Daphne P Guh; Xin Li; Paul Barnett; Ahmed Bayoumi; Susan Griffin; Vilija Joyce; Mark Holodniy; Doug K Owens; Aslam H Anis Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-06-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David L Bushnell; Thomas M O'Dorisio; M Sue O'Dorisio; Yusuf Menda; Rodney J Hicks; Eric Van Cutsem; Jean-Louis Baulieu; Francoise Borson-Chazot; Lowell Anthony; Al B Benson; Kjell Oberg; Ashley B Grossman; Mary Connolly; Hakim Bouterfa; Yong Li; Katherine A Kacena; Norman LaFrance; Stanislas A Pauwels Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hui-Chu Lang; Linghsiang Chuang; Shiow-Ching Shun; Ching-Lin Hsieh; Chung-Fu Lan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 3.603