Literature DB >> 16903996

Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population.

Murtuza Bharmal1, Joseph Thomas.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The EuroQol (EQ-5D) and SF-6D (derived from the SF-12) were compared to assess any ceiling effect in the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems. In addition, the Physical Component Summary (PCS-12), the Mental Component Summary (MCS-12) and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) were compared on their discriminative ability to detect differences among individuals with different morbidities and sociodemographic characteristics.
METHODS: Data from the 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were used for the analysis. A total of 11,248 individuals that were 18 years or older and had data on all the study variables were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 5104 individuals (47%) reported no limitations on all of the EQ-5D dimensions and only 683 (5.8%) were classified in full health based on the SF-6D descriptive system. Approximately 49% of the respondents that reported no limitations on the EQ-5D reported feeling "tense or downhearted and low,""a little," (level 2) or "some" (level 3) of the time on SF-6D. PCS-12 scores and EQ-VAS scores among individuals reporting no limitations on the EQ-5D descriptive system were significantly lower for respondents reporting coronary heart disease, angina, diabetes, myocardial infarction, high blood pressure or joint pain compared with respondents that reported no medical condition. Effect sizes for medical conditions using the PCS-12 were larger than the effect sizes using the EQ-VAS.
CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the EQ-5D descriptive system, the SF-6D descriptive system derived from the SF-12 does not seem to have a ceiling effect. Nevertheless, the SF-6D does not discriminate between individuals with different morbidities who report full health on the EQ-5D, as does the PCS-12 and the EQ-VAS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16903996     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00108.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  78 in total

1.  Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey.

Authors:  Oriol Cunillera; Ricard Tresserras; Luis Rajmil; Gemma Vilagut; Pilar Brugulat; Mike Herdman; Anna Mompart; Antonia Medina; Yolanda Pardo; Jordi Alonso; John Brazier; Montse Ferrer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Chilean population norms derived from the health-related quality of Life SF-6D.

Authors:  Miguel A Garcia-Gordillo; Daniel Collado-Mateo; Pedro R Olivares; José C Adsuar
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-06-19

3.  A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Alan M Jette; Margaret R Grove; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Quantifying the decrement in utility from perceived side effects of combination antiretroviral therapies in patients with HIV.

Authors:  R Scott Braithwaite; Joseph Goulet; Ian Kudel; Joel Tsevat; Amy C Justice
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 5.725

5.  Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status.

Authors:  Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Yannis Tountas; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-11-29       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Nick Kontodimopoulos; Michalis Argiriou; Nikolaos Theakos; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-05-15

Review 7.  A meta-analysis of health state valuations for people with diabetes: explaining the variation across methods and implications for economic evaluation.

Authors:  Tom W C Lung; Alison J Hayes; Andrew Hayen; Andrew Farmer; Philip M Clarke
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 8.  Using QALYs in cancer: a review of the methodological limitations.

Authors:  Martina Garau; Koonal K Shah; Anne R Mason; Qing Wang; Adrian Towse; Michael F Drummond
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  An explorative cost-effectiveness analysis of school-based screening for child anxiety using a decision analytic model.

Authors:  Ellin Simon; Carmen D Dirksen; Susan M Bögels
Journal:  Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2013-03-29       Impact factor: 4.785

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.