OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and the EQ-5D-3L (3L) health outcomes assessment instruments in patients with hepatitis B in China. METHODS: Patients, including hepatitis B virus carriers and those with active or inactive chronic hepatitis B, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma, answered a questionnaire composed of 5L, socio-demographic information, 3L, and the visual analog scale (VAS), respectively. After 1 week, a retest was conducted for inpatients. We compared acceptability, face validity, redistribution properties, convergent validity, known-group validity, discriminatory power, ceiling effect, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of 5L and 3L. RESULTS: A total of 369 outpatients and 276 inpatients were recruited for the first interview. Of the inpatients, 183 were used in the retest. Most patients preferred 5L-3L. The 3L-5L response pairs had an inconsistency rate of 2.4%. Correlation with the VAS was greater with 5L than with 3L. Age, education, and comorbidity were associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL). 5L discriminated more infectious conditions than 3L. In all dimensions, the Shannon's index from 5L was larger while in three dimensions the Shannon's evenness index from 5L was slightly larger. The ceiling effect was reduced in 5L. In patients with stable health states, no significant difference was detected in the weighted kappa between 5L and 3L, but intraclass correlation coefficient of 5L was higher than that of 3L. In patients with improved health states, HRQoL was seen as increased in both 5L and 3L, without significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L was more suitable than the EQ-5D-3L in the patients with hepatitis B in China.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to compare psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and the EQ-5D-3L (3L) health outcomes assessment instruments in patients with hepatitis B in China. METHODS:Patients, including hepatitis B virus carriers and those with active or inactive chronic hepatitis B, compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma, answered a questionnaire composed of 5L, socio-demographic information, 3L, and the visual analog scale (VAS), respectively. After 1 week, a retest was conducted for inpatients. We compared acceptability, face validity, redistribution properties, convergent validity, known-group validity, discriminatory power, ceiling effect, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of 5L and 3L. RESULTS: A total of 369 outpatients and 276 inpatients were recruited for the first interview. Of the inpatients, 183 were used in the retest. Most patients preferred 5L-3L. The 3L-5L response pairs had an inconsistency rate of 2.4%. Correlation with the VAS was greater with 5L than with 3L. Age, education, and comorbidity were associated with health-related quality of life (HRQoL). 5L discriminated more infectious conditions than 3L. In all dimensions, the Shannon's index from 5L was larger while in three dimensions the Shannon's evenness index from 5L was slightly larger. The ceiling effect was reduced in 5L. In patients with stable health states, no significant difference was detected in the weighted kappa between 5L and 3L, but intraclass correlation coefficient of 5L was higher than that of 3L. In patients with improved health states, HRQoL was seen as increased in both 5L and 3L, without significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L was more suitable than the EQ-5D-3L in the patients with hepatitis B in China.
Authors: Hong-Mei Wang; Donald L Patrick; Todd C Edwards; Anne M Skalicky; Hai-Yan Zeng; Wen-Wen Gu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ben van Hout; M F Janssen; You-Shan Feng; Thomas Kohlmann; Jan Busschbach; Dominik Golicki; Andrew Lloyd; Luciana Scalone; Paul Kind; A Simon Pickard Journal: Value Health Date: 2012-05-24 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Luciana Scalone; Roberta Ciampichini; Stefano Fagiuoli; Ivan Gardini; Francesco Fusco; Laura Gaeta; Anna Del Prete; Giancarlo Cesana; Lorenzo G Mantovani Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2012-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sun Sun; Jiaying Chen; Magnus Johannesson; Paul Kind; Ling Xu; Yaoguang Zhang; Kristina Burström Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147
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: Fanni Rencz; Peter L Lakatos; László Gulácsi; Valentin Brodszky; Zsuzsanna Kürti; Szilvia Lovas; János Banai; László Herszényi; Tamás Cserni; Tamás Molnár; Márta Péntek; Károly Palatka Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Barbara L Conner-Spady; Deborah A Marshall; Eric Bohm; Michael J Dunbar; Tom W Noseworthy Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-08 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