Chen-Wei Pan1, Jun-Yi He2,3, Yan-Bo Zhu4, Chun-Hua Zhao5, Nan Luo6, Pei Wang7,8. 1. School of Public Health, Medical College of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 2. School of Public Health, Fudan University, 130 Dong An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. 3. Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (Fudan University), Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, China. 5. Medical Education and Training Department, Gusu School, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical UniversitySuzhou Municipal HospitalNanjing Medical University, Suzhou, China. 6. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 7. School of Public Health, Fudan University, 130 Dong An Road, Shanghai, 200032, China. wang_p@fudan.edu.cn. 8. Key Lab of Health Technology Assessment, National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (Fudan University), Shanghai, China. wang_p@fudan.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare measurement properties of the utility scores derived from various country-specific value sets of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EORTC QLU-C10D (10D) in gastric cancer patient. METHODS: The study used cross-sectional data of 243 Chinese gastric cancer patients who completed both 5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Utility score of QLU-C10D is generated from all the available QLU-C10D value sets currently; the score of 5L is derived from the corresponding 5L value sets for the countries with both the 5L and QLU-C10D value sets and the Chinese 5L value set. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing their correlations with the VAS score. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing the utility scores the patients with different severities. Their relative efficiency (RE) was also compared. RESULTS: Correlation coefficient of 5L and QLU-C10D utility scores with VAS ranged from 0.54 to 0.59, and 0.55 to 0.63, respectively. Both the utility scores were in general able to discriminate the patients with different severities; and 5L utility score had higher RE in the majority of known-groups. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utility scores were different and, thus, non-swappable. They possess similar convergent validity and known-group validity; while EQ-5D-5L scores may have better discriminative power.
BACKGROUND: To compare measurement properties of the utility scores derived from various country-specific value sets of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EORTC QLU-C10D (10D) in gastric cancer patient. METHODS: The study used cross-sectional data of 243 Chinese gastric cancer patients who completed both 5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Utility score of QLU-C10D is generated from all the available QLU-C10D value sets currently; the score of 5L is derived from the corresponding 5L value sets for the countries with both the 5L and QLU-C10D value sets and the Chinese 5L value set. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing their correlations with the VAS score. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing the utility scores the patients with different severities. Their relative efficiency (RE) was also compared. RESULTS: Correlation coefficient of 5L and QLU-C10D utility scores with VAS ranged from 0.54 to 0.59, and 0.55 to 0.63, respectively. Both the utility scores were in general able to discriminate the patients with different severities; and 5L utility score had higher RE in the majority of known-groups. CONCLUSION: EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utility scores were different and, thus, non-swappable. They possess similar convergent validity and known-group validity; while EQ-5D-5L scores may have better discriminative power.
Authors: Helen McTaggart-Cowan; Madeleine T King; Richard Norman; Daniel S J Costa; A Simon Pickard; Dean A Regier; Rosalie Viney; Stuart J Peacock Journal: MDM Policy Pract Date: 2019-04-13