Literature DB >> 17665466

Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement.

Feng Xie1, Shu-Chuen Li, Nan Luo, Ngai-Nung Lo, Seng-Jin Yeo, Kuang-Ying Yang, Kok-Yong Fong, Julian Thumboo.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and Short Form 6D (SF-6D) among multiethnic Asian patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) scheduled for total knee replacement in Singapore.
METHODS: Patients were asked to complete questionnaires including the EQ-5D, Short Form 36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lequesne knee index. EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores were calculated using the scoring algorithms developed from the UK general population. Agreement between the 2 instruments was assessed by comparing their score distributions, means, medians, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and a Bland-Altman plot. Correlations of the EQ-5D and SF-6D with WOMAC and Lequesne knee index scores were also examined.
RESULTS: A consecutive sample of 258 knee OA patients (127 English-speaking and 131 Chinese-speaking) participated. The mean +/- SD EQ-5D utility score was 0.49 +/- 0.31 (range -0.25-1.00) and the mean SF-6D utility score was 0.63 +/- 0.12 (range 0.32-0.89). In a hypothetical example, this 0.14-point difference in mean utility scores yielded a difference of $10,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in cost-effectiveness ratios. The score distribution was bimodal for the EQ-5D and normal for the SF-6D. This poor agreement was also demonstrated by the Bland-Altman plot and the low ICC (range 0.18-0.54). Correlations of the WOMAC and Lequesne index with the EQ-5D were higher than with the SF-6D.
CONCLUSION: Using different preference-based health-related quality of life instruments may yield different utility scores, which could have a great impact on QALY estimates. This highlights the importance of selecting appropriate instruments for economic evaluation. Additional research is needed to determine which instrument (the EQ-5D or the SF-6D) should be used in OA patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17665466     DOI: 10.1002/art.22883

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Rheum        ISSN: 0004-3591


  21 in total

1.  Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights.

Authors:  Edimansyah Abdin; Mythily Subramaniam; Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar; Nan Luo; Siow Ann Chong
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  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

3.  Do modern total knee replacements offer better value for money? A health economic analysis.

Authors:  David F Hamilton; Nicholas D Clement; Richard Burnett; James T Patton; Mathew Moran; Colin R Howie; A H R W Simpson; Paul Gaston
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-07-09       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  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

5.  Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Fatima Al Sayah; Weiyu Qiu; Feng Xie; Jeffrey A Johnson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications.

Authors:  Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Zinovia Chadjiapostolou; Eleni Arvanitaki; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Dimitris Niakas
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2010-12-05

7.  Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).

Authors:  Fan Yang; Titus Lau; Evan Lee; A Vathsala; Kee Seng Chia; Nan Luo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2014-12-18

8.  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

Review 9.  A review of health-utility data for osteoarthritis: implications for clinical trial-based evaluation.

Authors:  Hirsch S Ruchlin; Ralph P Insinga
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Effect of an education programme for patients with osteoarthritis in primary care--a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Eva Ekvall Hansson; Malin Jönsson-Lundgren; Anne-Marie Ronnheden; Eva Sörensson; Asa Bjärnung; Leif E Dahlberg
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-25       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.