Fan Yang1, Titus Lau2, Evan Lee2, A Vathsala2, Kee Seng Chia1, Nan Luo3. 1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, MD 1, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. 2. Division of Nephrology, University Medicine Cluster, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Road, NUHS Tower Block, Singapore, 119228, Singapore. 3. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, MD 1, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. nan_luo@nuhs.edu.sg.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form 6-dimension (SF-6D) instruments in assessing patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, ESRD patients attending a tertiary hospital were interviewed using a battery of questionnaires including the EQ-5D-5L, the kidney disease quality of life instrument (KDQOL-36), and questions assessing dialysis history and socio-demographic characteristics. We reviewed patients' medical records for their clinical information. We assessed the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores and compared their ability to distinguish between patients differing in health status and the magnitude of between-group difference they quantified. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty ESRD patients on dialysis (mean age, 60.1 years; female, 48.7%) participated in the study. Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D demonstrated satisfactory known-groups validity; the EQ-5D-5L was more sensitive to differences in clinical outcomes and the SF-6D was more sensitive to differences in health outcomes measured by KDQOL scales. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the measures was 0.36. The differences in the EQ-5D-5L index score for patients in better and worse health status were greater than those measured by the SF-6D index score. CONCLUSIONS: Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D are valid instruments for assessing ESRD patients. However, the two preference-based measures cannot be used interchangeably and it appears that EQ-5D-5L would lead to more favorable cost-effectiveness results than SF-6D if they are used in economic evaluations of interventions for ESRD.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and the Short Form 6-dimension (SF-6D) instruments in assessing patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Singapore. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, ESRDpatients attending a tertiary hospital were interviewed using a battery of questionnaires including the EQ-5D-5L, the kidney disease quality of life instrument (KDQOL-36), and questions assessing dialysis history and socio-demographic characteristics. We reviewed patients' medical records for their clinical information. We assessed the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores and compared their ability to distinguish between patients differing in health status and the magnitude of between-group difference they quantified. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty ESRDpatients on dialysis (mean age, 60.1 years; female, 48.7%) participated in the study. Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D demonstrated satisfactory known-groups validity; the EQ-5D-5L was more sensitive to differences in clinical outcomes and the SF-6D was more sensitive to differences in health outcomes measured by KDQOL scales. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the measures was 0.36. The differences in the EQ-5D-5L index score for patients in better and worse health status were greater than those measured by the SF-6D index score. CONCLUSIONS: Both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D are valid instruments for assessing ESRDpatients. However, the two preference-based measures cannot be used interchangeably and it appears that EQ-5D-5L would lead to more favorable cost-effectiveness results than SF-6D if they are used in economic evaluations of interventions for ESRD.
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: F Yang; K Griva; T Lau; A Vathsala; E Lee; H J Ng; N Mooppil; M Foo; S P Newman; K S Chia; N Luo Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-03-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Sa'ed H Zyoud; Dala N Daraghmeh; Diana O Mezyed; Razan L Khdeir; Mayas N Sawafta; Nora A Ayaseh; Ghada H Tabeeb; Waleed M Sweileh; Rahmat Awang; Samah W Al-Jabi Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Jiabi Wen; Xuejing Jin; Fatima Al Sayah; Hilary Short; Arto Ohinmaa; Sara N Davison; Michael Walsh; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.147