Tianxin Pan1,2, Brendan Mulhern3, Rosalie Viney3, Richard Norman4, An Tran-Duy5, Janel Hanmer6, Nancy Devlin5. 1. Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. tianxin.pan1@unimelb.edu.au. 2. School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. tianxin.pan1@unimelb.edu.au. 3. Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia. 5. Health Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. 6. Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: EQ-5D and PROMIS-29 are both concise, generic measures of patient-reported outcomes accompanied by preference weights that allow the estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both instruments are candidates for use in economic evaluation. However, they have different features in terms of the domains selected to measure respondents' self-perceived health and the characteristics of (and methods used to obtain) the preference weights. It is important to understand the relationship between the instruments and the implications of choosing either for the evidence used in decision-making. This literature review aimed to synthesise existing evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 (and measures based on it, such as PROMIS-29+2) and EQ-5D (both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L). METHODS: A literature review was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies investigating the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-based instruments. RESULTS: The literature search identified 95 unique studies, of which nine studies met the inclusion criteria, i.e. compared both instruments. Six studies examined the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L. Three main types of relationship have been examined in the nine studies: (a) comparing PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D as descriptive systems; (b) mapping PROMIS-29 domains to EQ-5D utilities; and (c) comparing and transforming PROMIS-29 utilities to EQ-5D utilities. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D. The impact of choosing either instrument on the evidence used in cost-effectiveness analysis is currently unclear. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between the two instruments.
PURPOSE: EQ-5D and PROMIS-29 are both concise, generic measures of patient-reported outcomes accompanied by preference weights that allow the estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both instruments are candidates for use in economic evaluation. However, they have different features in terms of the domains selected to measure respondents' self-perceived health and the characteristics of (and methods used to obtain) the preference weights. It is important to understand the relationship between the instruments and the implications of choosing either for the evidence used in decision-making. This literature review aimed to synthesise existing evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 (and measures based on it, such as PROMIS-29+2) and EQ-5D (both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L). METHODS: A literature review was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies investigating the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-based instruments. RESULTS: The literature search identified 95 unique studies, of which nine studies met the inclusion criteria, i.e. compared both instruments. Six studies examined the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L. Three main types of relationship have been examined in the nine studies: (a) comparing PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D as descriptive systems; (b) mapping PROMIS-29 domains to EQ-5D utilities; and (c) comparing and transforming PROMIS-29 utilities to EQ-5D utilities. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D. The impact of choosing either instrument on the evidence used in cost-effectiveness analysis is currently unclear. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between the two instruments.
Authors: David Cella; Seung W Choi; David M Condon; Ben Schalet; Ron D Hays; Nan E Rothrock; Susan Yount; Karon F Cook; Richard C Gershon; Dagmar Amtmann; Darren A DeWalt; Paul A Pilkonis; Arthur A Stone; Kevin Weinfurt; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Barry Dewitt; David Feeny; Baruch Fischhoff; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Rachel Hess; Paul A Pilkonis; Dennis A Revicki; Mark S Roberts; Joel Tsevat; Lan Yu; Janel Hanmer Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2018-06-26 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Benjamin M Craig; Bryce B Reeve; Paul M Brown; David Cella; Ron D Hays; Joseph Lipscomb; A Simon Pickard; Dennis A Revicki Journal: Value Health Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Matthew Kennedy-Martin; Bernhard Slaap; Michael Herdman; Mandy van Reenen; Tessa Kennedy-Martin; Wolfgang Greiner; Jan Busschbach; Kristina S Boye Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2020-06-08