Victoria McCreanor1,2, Elaine Lum3, Nicholas Graves3, Nan Luo4, William Parsonage5,6, Adrian Barnett5. 1. AusHSI, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. victoria.mccreanor@qut.edu.au. 2. Jamieson Trauma Institute, Metro North Health, Herston, Australia. victoria.mccreanor@qut.edu.au. 3. Duke-NUS Medical School, Health Services & Systems Research, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 5. AusHSI, Centre for Healthcare Transformation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Cardiology, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital, Herston, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study describes the reporting of the preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instrument, the EQ-5D, and proposes strategies to improve reporting and reduce research waste. The EQ-5D is a validated instrument widely used for health economic evaluation and is useful for informing health policy. METHODS: As part of a systematic review of papers reporting EQ-5D utility weights in patients with coronary artery disease, we noted the reasons data from some papers could not be reused in a meta-analysis, including whether health utility weights and sufficient statistical details were reported. Research waste was quantified using: (1) the percentage of papers and sample size excluded, and (2) researcher time and cost reviewing poorly reported papers. RESULTS: Our search strategy found 5942 papers. At title and abstract screening 93% were excluded. Of the 379 full text papers screened, 130 papers reported using EQ-5D. Only 46% (60/130) of those studies reported utility weights and/or statistical properties enabling meta-analysis. Only 67% of included papers had reported EQ-5D in the title or abstract. A total sample size of 133,298 was excluded because of poor reporting. The cost of researcher time wasted estimated to be between $3816 and $13,279 for our review. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting of EQ-5D data creates research waste where potentially useful data are excluded from meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Poor reporting of HRQOL instruments also creates waste due to additional time spent reviewing papers for systematic reviews that are subsequently excluded. RECOMMENDATIONS: Studies using the EQ-5D should report utility weights with appropriate summary statistics to enable reuse in meta-analysis and more robust evidence for health policy. We recommend authors report the HRQOL instrument in the title or abstract in line with current reporting guidelines (CONSORT-PRO and SPIRIT-PRO Extensions) to make it easier for other researchers to find. Validated instruments should also be listed in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to improve cataloguing and retrieval of previous research.
PURPOSE: This study describes the reporting of the preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instrument, the EQ-5D, and proposes strategies to improve reporting and reduce research waste. The EQ-5D is a validated instrument widely used for health economic evaluation and is useful for informing health policy. METHODS: As part of a systematic review of papers reporting EQ-5D utility weights in patients with coronary artery disease, we noted the reasons data from some papers could not be reused in a meta-analysis, including whether health utility weights and sufficient statistical details were reported. Research waste was quantified using: (1) the percentage of papers and sample size excluded, and (2) researcher time and cost reviewing poorly reported papers. RESULTS: Our search strategy found 5942 papers. At title and abstract screening 93% were excluded. Of the 379 full text papers screened, 130 papers reported using EQ-5D. Only 46% (60/130) of those studies reported utility weights and/or statistical properties enabling meta-analysis. Only 67% of included papers had reported EQ-5D in the title or abstract. A total sample size of 133,298 was excluded because of poor reporting. The cost of researcher time wasted estimated to be between $3816 and $13,279 for our review. CONCLUSIONS: Poor reporting of EQ-5D data creates research waste where potentially useful data are excluded from meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Poor reporting of HRQOL instruments also creates waste due to additional time spent reviewing papers for systematic reviews that are subsequently excluded. RECOMMENDATIONS: Studies using the EQ-5D should report utility weights with appropriate summary statistics to enable reuse in meta-analysis and more robust evidence for health policy. We recommend authors report the HRQOL instrument in the title or abstract in line with current reporting guidelines (CONSORT-PRO and SPIRIT-PRO Extensions) to make it easier for other researchers to find. Validated instruments should also be listed in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to improve cataloguing and retrieval of previous research.
Authors: John Brazier; Roberta Ara; Ismail Azzabi; Jan Busschbach; Hélène Chevrou-Séverac; Bruce Crawford; Luciane Cruz; John Karnon; Andrew Lloyd; Suzy Paisley; A Simon Pickard Journal: Value Health Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: An-Wen Chan; Fujian Song; Andrew Vickers; Tom Jefferson; Kay Dickersin; Peter C Gøtzsche; Harlan M Krumholz; Davina Ghersi; H Bart van der Worp Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul Glasziou; Douglas G Altman; Patrick Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Mike Clarke; Steven Julious; Susan Michie; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 79.321