A Systematic Review of Studies Comparing the Measurement Properties of the Three-Level and Five-Level Versions of the EQ-5D

Ines Buchholz, Mathieu F Janssen, Thomas Kohlmann, You-Shan Feng, Ines Buchholz, Mathieu F Janssen, Thomas Kohlmann, You-Shan Feng

Abstract

Background: Since the introduction of the five-level version of the EQ-5D (5L), many studies have comparatively investigated the measurement properties of the original three-level version (3L) with the 5L version.

Objective: The aim of this study was to consolidate the available evidence on the performance of both instruments.

Methods: A systematic literature search of studies in the English and German languages was conducted (2007-January 2018) using the PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO (EBSCO) databases, as well as the EuroQol Research Foundation website. Data were extracted and assessed on missing values, distributional properties, informativity indices (Shannon's H' and J'), inconsistencies, responsiveness, and test-retest reliability.

Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the review. Missing values and floor effects (percentage reporting the worst health state) were found to be negligible for both 3L and 5L (< 5%). From 18 studies, inconsistencies ranged from 0 to 10.6%, although they were generally well below 5%, with 9 studies reporting the most inconsistencies for Usual Activities (mean percentage 4.1%). Shannon's indices were always higher for 5L than for 3L, and all but three studies reported lower ceiling effects ('11111') for 5L than for 3L. There is mixed and insufficient evidence on responsiveness and test-retest reliability, although results on index values showed better performance for 5L on test-retest reliability.

Conclusion: Overall, studies showed similar or better measurement properties of the 5L compared with the 3L, and evidence indicated moderately better distributional parameters and substantial improvement in informativity for the 5L compared with the 3L. Insufficient evidence on responsiveness and test-retest reliability implies further research is needed.

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

This work was funded by the EuroQol Research Foundation (grant number EQ Project 2016170).

Conflict of interest

All authors are members of the EuroQol Group and receive or have received research grants from the EuroQol Research Foundation.

Disclaimer

The views of the authors expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the EuroQol Group. Parts of the contents of this paper were presented at the 34th EuroQol Plenary Meeting in Barcelona, Spain.

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed in this review were extracted from published articles (see the ESM) and are available from the corresponding authors of the included articles.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search and selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Ceiling for the profile (‘11111’) compared with the 3L and the 5L. f.-up follow-up
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Ceiling for the profile by sample type: forest plot with study proportions, pooled proportions, and 95% CI of reporting ‘11111’ of the EQ-5D-3L against the EQ-5D-5L. CI confidence interval, P proportion, N sample size, THA total hip arthroplasty, UK United Kingdom, US United States
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Shannon’s H′ and J′ for the 3L and the 5L
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Percentage of inconsistencies by dimension and overall. THR total hip replacement

References

    1. Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137. doi: 10.1007/s40258-017-0310-5.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Devlin NJ, Krabbe PF. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl. 1):1–3. doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.
    1. Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D value sets: inventory, comparative review and user guide. EuroQol Group Monographs ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2007.
    1. Dyer MTD, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-13.
    1. Prieto L, Novick D, Sacristan JA, Edgell ET. Alonso J, on behalf of the SOHO Study Group. A Rasch model analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of the EuroQoL-5D in the Schizophrenia Outpatient Health Outcomes Study. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2003;107(Suppl. 416):24–29. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.107.s416.6.x.
    1. Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, Koh DR, Ng SC, Yoon KH, Vasoo S, Li SC, Thumboo J. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(1):87–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1022063721237.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, Bonsel GJ. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.
    1. Lloyd A. EQ-5D: Moving from Three Levels to Five. Editorial. Value Health. 2018;21(1):57–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.11.007.
    1. Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can the EQ-5D detect meaningful change? A systematic review. PharmacoEconomics. 2015;33(11):1137–1154. doi: 10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6.
    1. Johnson JA, Pickard AS. Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care. 2000;38(1):115–121. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.
    1. Lubetkin E, Jia H, Gold MR. Construct validity of the EQ-5D in low-income Chinese American primary care patients. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(8):1459–1468. doi: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000040793.40831.72.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. National Healthcare Quality Report. 2003.
    1. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):317–325. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00609-1.
    1. Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):485–495. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9317-6.
    1. Szende A, Leidy NK, Stahl E, Svensson K. Estimating health utilities in patients with asthma and COPD: evidence on the performance of EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(2):267–272. doi: 10.1007/s11136-008-9429-z.
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan A, Chen G, Maxwell A. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Med Decis Making. 2016;36(2):147–159. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15613522.
    1. Sintonen H. Comparing properties of the 15D and the EQ-5D in measuring health-related quality of life. Arch Hell Med. 2001;18(2):156–160.
    1. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, Esdaile JM, Anis AH. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(7):1571–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.034.
    1. Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A Systematic Review. Value Health. 2011;14(6):907–920. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.006.
    1. Obradovic M, Lal A, Liedgens H. Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:110. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110.
    1. Bonsel G, van Agt H. The number of levels in the descriptive system. Rotterdam: Institute of Medical Technology Assessment; 1994. pp. 115–120.
    1. Kind P, Macran S. Levelling the playing field: increasing the number of response categories in EQ-5D. 19th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group Discussion Papers. New York, Centre for Health Economics; 2002. pp. 311–22.
    1. Van Reenen M, Janssen B. EQ-5D-5L User Guide, Basic Information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Version 2.1. EuroQol Research Foundation; 2015.
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. NIH National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Study quality assessment tools. 2017. . Accessed 30 Mar 2017
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. Teachmann J. Analysis of population diversity. Sociol Methods Res. 1980;8:341–362. doi: 10.1177/004912418000800305.
    1. Grissom RJ, Kim JJ. Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications. 2. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2012.
    1. Kottner J, Audigé L, Brorsonc S, Donner A, Gajewski BJ, Hróbjartsson A, Roberts C, Shoukri M, Streiner DL. Guidelines for reporting reliability and agreement studies (GRRAS) were proposed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002.
    1. Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73:1167–1179. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–363.
    1. Spitzer RL, Cohen J, Fleiss JL, Endicott J. Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. A new approach. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;17(1):83–87. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1967.01730250085012.
    1. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficent as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 1973;33:613–619. doi: 10.1177/001316447303300309.
    1. Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.
    1. Buchholz I, Thielker K, Feng YS, Kupatz P, Kohlmann T. Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: a head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):829–835. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x.
    1. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Al KA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–1784. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0910-6.
    1. Craig BM, Pickard AS, Lubetkin EI. Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):93–99. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.011.
    1. Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:171. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0356-8.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Buczek J, Karlińska A, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, Pickard AS. Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):845–850. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0834-1.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlinska A, Buczek J, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–1563. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.
    1. Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Freiberg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L Improves on the EQ-5D-3L for Health-related Quality-of-life Assessment in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3383–3390. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4091-y.
    1. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, Swinburn P, Busschbach J. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–1727. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
    1. Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–2363. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.
    1. Khan I, Morris S, Pashayan N, Matata B, Bashir Z, Maguirre J. Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:60. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1.
    1. Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, Kim SH, Chung SM. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):2245–2253. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0331-3.
    1. Kim SH, Kim HJ, Lee SI, Jo MW. Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(6):1065–1073. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.
    1. Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, Wang P. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1767–1774. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14. doi: 10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.
    1. Scalone L. Comparing the standard EQ-5D-3L versus 5L version for the assessment of health of patients with live diseases. EuroQol Proc. 2011;16:213–239.
    1. Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1707–1716. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.
    1. Scalone L, Cortesi PA, Ciampichini R, Cesana G, Mantovani LG. Health Related Quality of Life norm data of the general population in Italy: results using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments. Epidemiol Biostat Public Health. 2015;12(3):e11457-1–e11457-15.
    1. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and Sf-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–719. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1108-2.
    1. Wang Y, Tan NC, Tay EG, Thumboo J, Luo N. Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Singapore. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;13:103. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0297-2.
    1. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Ribeiro FP, Pereira LN. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:89. doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0491-x.
    1. Poór AK, Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulácsi L, Beretzky Z, Hidvégi B, Holló P, Kárpáti S, Péntek M. Measuement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:3409–3419. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.
    1. Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras AE. Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greese. Eur J Health Econ. 2017;18:519–531. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.
    1. Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras A, Kontodimas S. Assesment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2017;309:357–370. doi: 10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, van Hout B, Janssen MF, Pickard AS. Interim eq-5d-5 l value set for Poland: First crosswalk value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health Reg Issues. 2014;4C:19–23. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2014.06.001.
    1. Versteegh M, Vermeulen M, Evers AA, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk A. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003.
    1. Petrou S, Rivero-Arias O, Dakin H, Longworth L, Oppe M, Froud R, et al. The maps reporting statement for studies mapping onto generic preference-based outcome measures. Value Health. 2015;18(7):A715–A716. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.09.2702.
    1. Alava MH, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, Meads D, O’Dwyer J, Barton G, Irvine L. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004.
    1. Luo N, Cheung YB, Ng R, Lee CF. Mapping and direct valuation: do they give equivalent EQ-5D-5L index scores? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:166. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0361-y.
    1. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22. doi: 10.1002/hec.3564.
    1. Feng Y, Herdman M, van Nooten F, Cleeland C, Parkin D, Ikeda S, et al. An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2067–2078. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1541-5.
    1. Chevalier J, De Pouvourville G. Testing a new 5 level version of the EQ-5D in France. EuroQol Proceedings. 2008;14:75–88.
    1. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burström K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, Egmar AC, Gusi N, Herdman M, Jelsma J, Kind P, Olivares PR, Scalone L, Greiner W. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887–897. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9649-x.
    1. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ-5D descriptive system. A “Bolt-On” experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):42–53. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13480428.
    1. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. an exploratory study to test the impact on three “Bolt-On” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18(1):52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.004.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit