Prudence Wing Hang Cheung1, Carlos King Ho Wong2, Sin Ting Lau1, Jason Pui Yin Cheung3. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, 5/F Professorial Block, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Primary Care, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, The University of Hong Kong, 5/F Professorial Block, Queen Mary Hospital, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China. cheungjp@hku.hk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) utility scores for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: A baseline sample of 227 AIS patients was recruited between August and October 2015, and was surveyed prospectively to 9-12 months follow-up. EQ-5D-5L utility scores were derived using a two-step approach: (1) cross-walking from five-level responses to three-level responses and (2) applying the EQ-5D-3L Chinese population value set. An anchor approach was adopted to assess the responsiveness of EQ-5D. Effect size statistics (standardized effect size and standardized response mean) and independent t test were used to assess the responsiveness, as well as to analyze the ability of measures to detect score changes with global health condition changes or discriminate between the worsened and unchanged/improved groups. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of follow-up patients (64.2%) reported no change in global health condition based on the self-reported health anchor, whilst 4.6 and 31.3% of patients rated worse and better in current health condition compared to baseline, respectively. In the subgroup where health worsened, EQ-5D utility scores were responsive to detect negative changes. EQ-5D utility scores had slight improvement in the group where health improved, despite a high mean score of 0.92 at baseline. Neither statistical significance nor moderate-large effect size was observed in mean changes among unchanged group. Responsiveness property of the EQ-5D utility score was generally satisfactory with respect to each health condition group. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D is found to be able to capture positive changes, and responsive in detecting important clinical changes in the improved group of this AIS population.
PURPOSE: To test the responsiveness of the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) utility scores for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: A baseline sample of 227 AIS patients was recruited between August and October 2015, and was surveyed prospectively to 9-12 months follow-up. EQ-5D-5L utility scores were derived using a two-step approach: (1) cross-walking from five-level responses to three-level responses and (2) applying the EQ-5D-3L Chinese population value set. An anchor approach was adopted to assess the responsiveness of EQ-5D. Effect size statistics (standardized effect size and standardized response mean) and independent t test were used to assess the responsiveness, as well as to analyze the ability of measures to detect score changes with global health condition changes or discriminate between the worsened and unchanged/improved groups. RESULTS: Approximately two-thirds of follow-up patients (64.2%) reported no change in global health condition based on the self-reported health anchor, whilst 4.6 and 31.3% of patients rated worse and better in current health condition compared to baseline, respectively. In the subgroup where health worsened, EQ-5D utility scores were responsive to detect negative changes. EQ-5D utility scores had slight improvement in the group where health improved, despite a high mean score of 0.92 at baseline. Neither statistical significance nor moderate-large effect size was observed in mean changes among unchanged group. Responsiveness property of the EQ-5D utility score was generally satisfactory with respect to each health condition group. CONCLUSIONS: EQ-5D is found to be able to capture positive changes, and responsive in detecting important clinical changes in the improved group of this AIS population.
Authors: James O Sanders; Richard H Browne; Sharon J McConnell; Susan A Margraf; Timothy E Cooney; David N Finegold Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.284
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: James T Bennett; Amer F Samdani; Tracey P Bastrom; Robert J Ames; Firoz Miyanji; Joshua M Pahys; Michelle C Marks; Baron S Lonner; Peter O Newton; Harry L Shufflebarger; Burt Yaszay; John M Flynn; Randal R Betz; Patrick J Cahill Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Dirk L Knol; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: R Chatterji; J M Naylor; I A Harris; E Armstrong; E Davidson; R Ekmejian; J Descallar Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Claire M Nolan; Louise Longworth; Joanne Lord; Jane L Canavan; Sarah E Jones; Samantha S C Kon; William D-C Man Journal: Thorax Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Helen Hoi Lun Tsang; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Carlos King Ho Wong; Prudence Wing Hang Cheung; Chak Sing Lau; Ho Yin Chung Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Helen Hoi Lun Tsang; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Carlos King Ho Wong; Prudence Wing Hang Cheung; Chak Sing Lau; Ho Yin Chung Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2019-01-30 Impact factor: 5.156