Literature DB >> 33821418

Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China.

Jie Jiang1,2, Yanming Hong1, Tiantian Zhang1,3, Zhihao Yang1, Tengfei Lin4, Zhuoru Liang1, Peiyao Lu1, Lishun Liu4, Binyan Wang5,6, Yongmei Xu7,8, Nan Luo9.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement properties of two versions of EQ-5D (i.e.EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in hypertensive patients in rural China.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was carried out in hypertensive patients in rural China. We compared the ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity, known-groups validity, and relative efficiency of the 3L and 5L and examined their agreement.
RESULTS: A total of 11,412 patients were enrolled in our study. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.84 (SD 0.21) according to the 5L and 0.86 (SD 0.17) according to the 3L. A good agreement was observed between the 3L and 5L. The overall ceiling effect decreased from 46.4% (3L) to 29.4% (5L). The Shannon index, H' improved in all dimensions when used 5L. When used 3L, the median responses of all groups were consistent with 5L across the three dimensions of 'mobility', 'self-care', 'usual activities', while the median responses were inconsistent for the 'pain/discomfort' and 'anxiety/depression' dimensions. The 3L performed better in eight comorbidities in terms of F-statistics and six comorbidities in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). The 5L performed better both in terms of the F-statistics and AUROCs in age, education level, anti-hypertensive medication use.
CONCLUSION: Taking all comparisons into account, we recommend the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients with hypertension in rural China.

Entities:  

Keywords:  China; EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; Health-related quality of life; Hypertension

Year:  2021        PMID: 33821418     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  61 in total

1.  Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada.

Authors:  J A Johnson; A S Pickard
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 2.  A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Jacek A Kopec; Kevin D Willison
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal: pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Authors:  Julia Earnshaw; Gavin Lewis
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets.

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

Review 5.  Economic evaluation of diagnostic methods used in dentistry. A systematic review.

Authors:  Helena Christell; Stephen Birch; Keith Horner; Christina Lindh; Madeleine Rohlin
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000-2015.

Authors:  Fanni Rencz; László Gulácsi; Michael Drummond; Dominik Golicki; Valentina Prevolnik Rupel; Judit Simon; Elly A Stolk; Valentin Brodszky; Petra Baji; Jakub Závada; Guenka Petrova; Alexandru Rotar; Márta Péntek
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2016-07-29       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 7.  International Regulations and Recommendations for Utility Data for Health Technology Assessment.

Authors:  Donna Rowen; Ismail Azzabi Zouraq; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Ben van Hout
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Aki Tsuchiya; Jan Busschbach
Journal:  Health Econ       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.046

9.  Recommendations for Conduct, Methodological Practices, and Reporting of Cost-effectiveness Analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Authors:  Gillian D Sanders; Peter J Neumann; Anirban Basu; Dan W Brock; David Feeny; Murray Krahn; Karen M Kuntz; David O Meltzer; Douglas K Owens; Lisa A Prosser; Joshua A Salomon; Mark J Sculpher; Thomas A Trikalinos; Louise B Russell; Joanna E Siegel; Theodore G Ganiats
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A comparison of HAS & NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments.

Authors:  Marc Massetti; Samuel Aballéa; Yann Videau; Cécile Rémuzat; Julie Roïz; Mondher Toumi
Journal:  J Mark Access Health Policy       Date:  2015-03-12
View more
  1 in total

1.  Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in measuring the HRQoL burden of 4 health conditions in China.

Authors:  Guizhi Weng; Yanming Hong; Nan Luo; Clara Mukuria; Jie Jiang; Zhihao Yang; Sha Li
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-10
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.