BACKGROUND: We assessed cross-sectional validity of EQ-5D after myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We compared EQ-5D, SF-36, quality of life After MI (QLMI), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Anginal Classification (CCSG) scores. Correlation and regression techniques were used to assess convergent validity. SF-36 and alternate Rand-36 scoring were compared. CCSG class was used to evaluate discriminative validity and clinical difference in health state scores. RESULTS: Of 99 patients: mean age 64; median 176.5 days post-MI; 80% had one MI; 74% were CCSG I. 1/3 to 1/2 reported mobility, self-care, pain, and emotional difficulties on EQ-5D. Median health state was 0.73. EQ-5D and SF-36 (or Rand-36) strongly correlate in overall health (0.75), emotional health (0.75), pain (0.68), and activity/functional (0.5-0.63). EQ-5D and QLMI strongly correlate in activities/self esteem (0.56), emotional health (0.64), anxiety/ depression--restriction (0.53), and overall health (0.5-0.57). EQ-5D self-care correlates weakly with all domains. Domain scores from each general instrument contributed to each other's overall health score (adjusted R2 0.61-0.69) and to disease specific score (0.45 adjusted R2). EQ-5D discriminates among CCSG classes (p < 0.000). Physicians detected a 0.16 difference in health state scores. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D provides valid general HrQOL measurement post-MI.
BACKGROUND: We assessed cross-sectional validity of EQ-5D after myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We compared EQ-5D, SF-36, quality of life After MI (QLMI), and Canadian Cardiovascular Society Anginal Classification (CCSG) scores. Correlation and regression techniques were used to assess convergent validity. SF-36 and alternate Rand-36 scoring were compared. CCSG class was used to evaluate discriminative validity and clinical difference in health state scores. RESULTS: Of 99 patients: mean age 64; median 176.5 days post-MI; 80% had one MI; 74% were CCSG I. 1/3 to 1/2 reported mobility, self-care, pain, and emotional difficulties on EQ-5D. Median health state was 0.73. EQ-5D and SF-36 (or Rand-36) strongly correlate in overall health (0.75), emotional health (0.75), pain (0.68), and activity/functional (0.5-0.63). EQ-5D and QLMI strongly correlate in activities/self esteem (0.56), emotional health (0.64), anxiety/ depression--restriction (0.53), and overall health (0.5-0.57). EQ-5D self-care correlates weakly with all domains. Domain scores from each general instrument contributed to each other's overall health score (adjusted R2 0.61-0.69) and to disease specific score (0.45 adjusted R2). EQ-5D discriminates among CCSG classes (p < 0.000). Physicians detected a 0.16 difference in health state scores. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D provides valid general HrQOL measurement post-MI.
Authors: Ghislaine A P G van Mastrigt; Manuela A Joore; Fred H M Nieman; Johan L Severens; Jos G Maessen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: John A Dodson; Suzanne V Arnold; Kimberly J Reid; Thomas M Gill; Michael W Rich; Frederick A Masoudi; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz; Karen P Alexander Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Neil K Aaronson; Ali K Choucair; Thomas E Elliott; Joanne Greenhalgh; Michele Y Halyard; Rachel Hess; Deborah M Miller; Bryce B Reeve; Maria Santana Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noelle C Garster; Mari Palta; Nancy K Sweitzer; Robert M Kaplan; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kimberley A Goldsmith; Matthew T Dyer; Peter M Schofield; Martin J Buxton; Linda D Sharples Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Matthew T D Dyer; Kimberley A Goldsmith; Linda S Sharples; Martin J Buxton Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 3.186