PURPOSE: To compare measurement properties and sensitivity to change of the standard version of the EQ-5D (3L) with a newly developed 5-level version (5L) in a multicenter sample of German rehabilitation inpatients (n = 230). METHODS: Rehabilitation patients (n = 114 orthopedic, n = 54 psychosomatic, n = 62 rheumatic) were asked to complete both versions of the EQ-5D and several other questionnaires at the beginning of, the end of and 3 month after inpatient rehabilitation. 3L and 5L were compared regarding missing values, ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: There were nearly no missing values in both questionnaires. Ceiling effects were 1.6 % points to 16.4 % points lower on average for the 5L. For psychosomatic patients, ceiling effects for 5L were as high as in the general German population. Absolute informativity (mean 5L: 1.76, 3L: 1.06) and relative informativity (5L: 0.76, 3L: 0.67) were both higher for 5L. 5L could better detect both positive and negative health changes in most dimensions and patient samples. Overall, patients made better use of the response levels of the 5L. Average proportion of inconsistent responses between 3L and 5L was 6.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectionally and longitudinally, 5L was associated with an improved ability to detect health changes over time, reduced ceiling effects, and improved discriminatory power. Overall, these findings were in line with previous study outcomes, although differing in magnitude. Since the sample size is moderate and generalizability of the reported results is unclear, further comparisons in other patient populations will be informative and should be encouraged.
PURPOSE: To compare measurement properties and sensitivity to change of the standard version of the EQ-5D (3L) with a newly developed 5-level version (5L) in a multicenter sample of German rehabilitation inpatients (n = 230). METHODS: Rehabilitation patients (n = 114 orthopedic, n = 54 psychosomatic, n = 62 rheumatic) were asked to complete both versions of the EQ-5D and several other questionnaires at the beginning of, the end of and 3 month after inpatient rehabilitation. 3L and 5L were compared regarding missing values, ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: There were nearly no missing values in both questionnaires. Ceiling effects were 1.6 % points to 16.4 % points lower on average for the 5L. For psychosomaticpatients, ceiling effects for 5L were as high as in the general German population. Absolute informativity (mean 5L: 1.76, 3L: 1.06) and relative informativity (5L: 0.76, 3L: 0.67) were both higher for 5L. 5L could better detect both positive and negative health changes in most dimensions and patient samples. Overall, patients made better use of the response levels of the 5L. Average proportion of inconsistent responses between 3L and 5L was 6.1 %. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-sectionally and longitudinally, 5L was associated with an improved ability to detect health changes over time, reduced ceiling effects, and improved discriminatory power. Overall, these findings were in line with previous study outcomes, although differing in magnitude. Since the sample size is moderate and generalizability of the reported results is unclear, further comparisons in other patient populations will be informative and should be encouraged.
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: 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: Adrienn Katalin Poór; Fanni Rencz; Valentin Brodszky; László Gulácsi; Zsuzsanna Beretzky; Bernadett Hidvégi; Péter Holló; Sarolta Kárpáti; Márta Péntek Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Amaia Bilbao; Lidia García-Pérez; Juan Carlos Arenaza; Isidoro García; Gloria Ariza-Cardiel; Elisa Trujillo-Martín; Maria João Forjaz; Jesús Martín-Fernández Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noemí Robles; Luis Rajmil; Dolors Rodriguez-Arjona; Marta Azuara; Francisco Codina; Hein Raat; Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; Michael Herdman Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Iftekhar Khan; Steve Morris; Nora Pashayan; Bashir Matata; Zahid Bashir; Joe Maguirre Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar; Mythily Subramaniam; Linda Wei Lin Tan; Edimansyah Abdin; Wei Yen Lim; Hwee Lin Wee; Siow Ann Chong; Rob Martinus van Dam Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.615