OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the three-level EQ-5D (3L) and a newly developed five-level version (5L). METHODS: Eighty-two respondents valued 15 standardized disease descriptions and their own health on three response scales (3L, 5L, and visual analog scale [VAS]) for all five EQ-5D dimensions. Performance was studied in terms of feasibility, face validity, redistribution properties, ordinality, convergent validity, discriminatory power, and test-retest and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: The majority of participants judged 5L as the preferred system in terms of feasibility (76%) and face validity (75%). In total, 1.1% of responses were inconsistent. Ordinality of 5L was confirmed in all cases. Convergent validity of 3L-VAS (range: 0.88-0.99) and 5L-VAS (0.90-0.99) were high and about equal. Discriminatory power (informativity) improves considerably with 5L without loss of Evenness. Interobserver reliability (0.49 vs. 0.57) and test-retest reliability (0.52 vs. 0.69) were higher in 5L. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D five-level version appears a valid and reliable extension of the three-level system. The new 5L system is particularly useful for describing mild health problems and monitoring population health.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is a head-to-head comparison of the performance of the three-level EQ-5D (3L) and a newly developed five-level version (5L). METHODS: Eighty-two respondents valued 15 standardized disease descriptions and their own health on three response scales (3L, 5L, and visual analog scale [VAS]) for all five EQ-5D dimensions. Performance was studied in terms of feasibility, face validity, redistribution properties, ordinality, convergent validity, discriminatory power, and test-retest and interobserver reliability. RESULTS: The majority of participants judged 5L as the preferred system in terms of feasibility (76%) and face validity (75%). In total, 1.1% of responses were inconsistent. Ordinality of 5L was confirmed in all cases. Convergent validity of 3L-VAS (range: 0.88-0.99) and 5L-VAS (0.90-0.99) were high and about equal. Discriminatory power (informativity) improves considerably with 5L without loss of Evenness. Interobserver reliability (0.49 vs. 0.57) and test-retest reliability (0.52 vs. 0.69) were higher in 5L. CONCLUSION: The EQ-5D five-level version appears a valid and reliable extension of the three-level system. The new 5L system is particularly useful for describing mild health problems and monitoring population health.
Authors: Ola Rolfson; Alastair Rothwell; Art Sedrakyan; Kate Eresian Chenok; Eric Bohm; Kevin J Bozic; Göran Garellick Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Chun Fan Lee; Raymond Ng; Nan Luo; Nan Soon Wong; Yoon Sim Yap; Soo Kien Lo; Whay Kuang Chia; Alethea Yee; Lalit Krishna; Celest Wong; Cynthia Goh; Yin Bun Cheung Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 3.603
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
Authors: Chen-Wei Pan; Hong-Peng Sun; Xingzhi Wang; Qinghua Ma; Yong Xu; Nan Luo; Pei Wang Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-12-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Meridith E Greene; Kevin A Rader; Göran Garellick; Henrik Malchau; Andrew A Freiberg; Ola Rolfson Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Juan Zhu; Xin-Xin Yan; Cheng-Cheng Liu; Hong Wang; Le Wang; Su-Mei Cao; Xian-Zhen Liao; Yun-Feng Xi; Yong Ji; Lin Lei; Hai-Fan Xiao; Hai-Jing Guan; Wen-Qiang Wei; Min Dai; Wanqing Chen; Ju-Fang Shi Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kimberley A Goldsmith; Matthew T Dyer; Martin J Buxton; Linda D Sharples Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 3.186