Carmen Selva-Sevilla1, Paula Ferrara2, Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo3. 1. Department of Applied Economy, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales de Albacete, Universidad de Castilla La-Mancha, Pza. De la Universidad, 1, 02071, Albacete, Spain. carmen.selva@uclm.es. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and Short-Form Six-Dimensions (SF-6D) are widely used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-utility analysis. The choice of the instrument could influence the results of cost-utility analysis. Our objective was to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in a postoperative Spanish population, as well as assess their interchangeability in a cost-utility analysis. DESIGN: Ambispective study. SETTING: Tertiary public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 275 Spanish patients who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation. INTERVENTION(S): Patients completed EQ-5D-3L and Short-Form 36 (SF-36v2) questionnaires. Internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, agreement, and construct validity (convergent validity, including dimension-to-dimension correlations, and "known groups" validity) were assessed. The Spanish tariffs were applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cronbach's α coefficient, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: Main findings were: (a) lack of agreement between EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient: 0.664 [95% CI: 0.600-0.720]; the Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference of 0.0835 and wide limits of agreement [- 0.2602-0.4272]). (b) Lack of correlation between domains that theoretically measure similar aspects of quality of life, with the exception of "pain" domain. CONCLUSIONS: The preference-based EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments showed valid psychometric properties to assess generic outcome in a Spanish population who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation; however, utility scores derived from the measures were different. Thus, these two instruments cannot be used interchangeably to perform a cost-utility analysis, and they should both be included in sensitivity analyses.
OBJECTIVE: EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) and Short-Form Six-Dimensions (SF-6D) are widely used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years in cost-utility analysis. The choice of the instrument could influence the results of cost-utility analysis. Our objective was to compare the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D and SF-6D in a postoperative Spanish population, as well as assess their interchangeability in a cost-utility analysis. DESIGN: Ambispective study. SETTING: Tertiary public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 275 Spanish patients who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation. INTERVENTION(S): Patients completed EQ-5D-3L and Short-Form 36 (SF-36v2) questionnaires. Internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, agreement, and construct validity (convergent validity, including dimension-to-dimension correlations, and "known groups" validity) were assessed. The Spanish tariffs were applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Cronbach's α coefficient, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plot. RESULTS: Main findings were: (a) lack of agreement between EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient: 0.664 [95% CI: 0.600-0.720]; the Bland-Altman plot showed a mean difference of 0.0835 and wide limits of agreement [- 0.2602-0.4272]). (b) Lack of correlation between domains that theoretically measure similar aspects of quality of life, with the exception of "pain" domain. CONCLUSIONS: The preference-based EQ-5D and SF-6D instruments showed valid psychometric properties to assess generic outcome in a Spanish population who had undergone surgery for lumbar disc herniation; however, utility scores derived from the measures were different. Thus, these two instruments cannot be used interchangeably to perform a cost-utility analysis, and they should both be included in sensitivity analyses.
Authors: Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Nick Kontodimopoulos; Evelina Pappa; Angelos A Papadopoulos; Yannis Tountas; Dimitris Niakas Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-11-29 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Garry R Barton; Tracey H Sach; Anthony J Avery; Claire Jenkinson; Michael Doherty; David K Whynes; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Health Econ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Manuela Joore; Danielle Brunenberg; Patricia Nelemans; Emiel Wouters; Petra Kuijpers; Adriaan Honig; Danielle Willems; Peter de Leeuw; Johan Severens; Annelies Boonen Journal: Value Health Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Tracey H Sach; Garry R Barton; Claire Jenkinson; Michael Doherty; Anthony J Avery; Kenneth R Muir Journal: Med Care Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.983