Christine M McDonough1,2, Tor D Tosteson1,3, Anna N A Tosteson1,4,3, Alan M Jette2, Margaret R Grove1, James N Weinstein1,5,6. 1. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire (CMM, TDT, ANAT, MRG, JNW) 2. Health & Disability Research Institute, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts (CMM, AMJ) 3. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire (TDT, ANAT) 4. Department of Medicine, DartmouthHitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire (ANAT) 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire (JNW) 6. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire (JNW)
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the longitudinal validity of widely used preference-weighted measurement systems for economic studies of intervertebral disk herniation (IDH). METHODS: Using data at baseline and 1 year from 1000 Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants with IDH and complete data, the authors considered the EQ-5D with UK and US values (EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US), 2 versions of the Health Utilities Index (HUI3 and HUI2), the SF-6D, and a regression-estimated quality of well-being score (eQWB). Differences in mean change scores (MCS) were assessed using signed rank tests, and Spearman correlations were calculated for change scores by system pairs. Using the Oswestry Disability Index, symptom satisfaction, progress rating, and self-perceived health ratings as criterion measures, the authors tested for trend in MCS across levels of change in criteria. They calculated floor and ceiling effects, effect size (ES), standardized response mean, and minimal important difference estimates. RESULTS: All systems demonstrated linear trends with external criteria and moderate to strong correlations between systems. However, differences in performance were evident. SF-6D and eQWB were most responsive (ES: 1.9 and 2.3, respectively), whereas EQ-5D-US and EQ-5D-UK were least responsive (ES: 1.23/1.20). Ceiling and floor effects were noted for all systems within key dimensions and for EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US for overall score. MCS ranged from 0.40 (0.38) for EQ-5D-UK to 0.13 (0.09) for eQWB and differed significantly, except between EQ-5D-US and HUI2. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the validity of all systems for measuring change in persons with IDH, without finding a clearly superior system. The unique characteristics of each system revealed in this study should guide system choice.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the longitudinal validity of widely used preference-weighted measurement systems for economic studies of intervertebral disk herniation (IDH). METHODS: Using data at baseline and 1 year from 1000 Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants with IDH and complete data, the authors considered the EQ-5D with UK and US values (EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US), 2 versions of the Health Utilities Index (HUI3 and HUI2), the SF-6D, and a regression-estimated quality of well-being score (eQWB). Differences in mean change scores (MCS) were assessed using signed rank tests, and Spearman correlations were calculated for change scores by system pairs. Using the Oswestry Disability Index, symptom satisfaction, progress rating, and self-perceived health ratings as criterion measures, the authors tested for trend in MCS across levels of change in criteria. They calculated floor and ceiling effects, effect size (ES), standardized response mean, and minimal important difference estimates. RESULTS: All systems demonstrated linear trends with external criteria and moderate to strong correlations between systems. However, differences in performance were evident. SF-6D and eQWB were most responsive (ES: 1.9 and 2.3, respectively), whereas EQ-5D-US and EQ-5D-UK were least responsive (ES: 1.23/1.20). Ceiling and floor effects were noted for all systems within key dimensions and for EQ-5D-UK and EQ-5D-US for overall score. MCS ranged from 0.40 (0.38) for EQ-5D-UK to 0.13 (0.09) for eQWB and differed significantly, except between EQ-5D-US and HUI2. CONCLUSIONS: This research supports the validity of all systems for measuring change in persons with IDH, without finding a clearly superior system. The unique characteristics of each system revealed in this study should guide system choice.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Nancy J O Birkmeyer; James N Weinstein; Anna N A Tosteson; Tor D Tosteson; Jonathan S Skinner; Jon D Lurie; Richard Deyo; John E Wennberg Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Napasri Chaisinanunkul; Opeolu Adeoye; Roger J Lewis; James C Grotta; Joseph Broderick; Tudor G Jovin; Raul G Nogueira; Jordan J Elm; Todd Graves; Scott Berry; Kennedy R Lees; Andrew D Barreto; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Daniel Lubelski; Matthew D Alvin; Michael Silverstein; Nilgun Senol; Kalil G Abdullah; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Daniel Lubelski; Matthew D Alvin; Andrew Torre-Healy; Kalil G Abdullah; Amy S Nowacki; Robert G Whitmore; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward C Benzel; Thomas E Mroz Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2014-10-10
Authors: Christine G Kohn; Matthew F Sidovar; Kirandeep Kaur; Yungfen Zhu; Craig I Coleman Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Anthony J Hatswell; Becky Pennington; Louisa Pericleous; Donna Rowen; Maximilian Lebmeier; Dawn Lee Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 3.186