Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature

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

Abstract

Purpose: Although the EQ-5D has a long history of use in a wide range of populations, the newer five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) has not yet had such extensive experience. This systematic review summarizes the available published scientific evidence on the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L.

Methods: Pre-determined key words and exclusion criteria were used to systematically search publications from 2011 to 2019. Information on study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted: specifically, EQ-5D-5L distribution (including ceiling and floor), missing values, reliability (test-retest), validity (convergent, known-groups, discriminate) and responsiveness (distribution, anchor-based). EQ-5D-5L index value means, ceiling and correlation coefficients (convergent validity) were pooled across the studies using random-effects models.

Results: Of the 889 identified publications, 99 were included for review, representing 32 countries. Musculoskeletal/orthopedic problems and cancer (n = 8 each) were most often studied. Most papers found missing values (17 of 17 papers) and floor effects (43 of 48 papers) to be unproblematic. While the index was found to be reliable (9 of 9 papers), individual dimensions exhibited instability over time. Index values and dimensions demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with global health measures, other multi-attribute utility instruments, physical/functional health, pain, activities of daily living, and clinical/biological measures. The instrument was not correlated with life satisfaction and cognition/communication measures. Responsiveness was addressed by 15 studies, finding moderate effect sizes when confined to studied subgroups with improvements in health.

Conclusions: The EQ-5D-5L exhibits excellent psychometric properties across a broad range of populations, conditions and settings. Rigorous exploration of its responsiveness is needed.

Keywords: EQ-5D; EQ-5D-5L; Health-Related Quality of Life; Psychometric properties; Systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

All four authors are members of the EuroQol group. Outside of scientific meetings, group members do not receive any financial support.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search and inclusion/exclusion results
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Proportion reporting no problems on the EQ-5D-5L profile “11111”: pooled across health conditions. b Proportion reporting no problems on the EQ-5D-5L profile “11111”: pooled for general and healthy populations
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a Proportion reporting no problems on the EQ-5D-5L profile “11111”: pooled across health conditions. b Proportion reporting no problems on the EQ-5D-5L profile “11111”: pooled for general and healthy populations
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a EQ-5D-5L index value mean: pooled across health conditions. b EQ-5D-5L index value mean: pooled across education level and employment status
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a EQ-5D-5L index value mean: pooled across health conditions. b EQ-5D-5L index value mean: pooled across education level and employment status
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other physical health measures. b Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other mental, emotional, cognitive and fatigue/vitality health measures. c Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other global health, clinical and non-health measures
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other physical health measures. b Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other mental, emotional, cognitive and fatigue/vitality health measures. c Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other global health, clinical and non-health measures
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other physical health measures. b Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other mental, emotional, cognitive and fatigue/vitality health measures. c Pooled correlation coefficient for EQ-5D-5L index value with other global health, clinical and non-health measures

References

Works Cited

    1. Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, van Hout B, Ramos-Goni JM. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation Protocol. Value in Health. 2019;22(1):23–30.
    1. Bharmal M, Thomas J. Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population. Value in Health. 2006;9(4):262–271.
    1. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Coons SJ. Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Medical Care. 2009;47(1):53–60.
    1. Palta M, Chen HY, Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Cherepanov D, Fryback DG. Standard error of measurement of 5 health utility indexes across the range of health for use in estimating reliability and responsiveness. Medical Decision Making. 2011;31(2):260–269.
    1. Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: Is the patient experience adequately represented? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2014;30(1):10–19.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics. 2004;13(9):873–884.
    1. Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, Brazier J, Ferrer M. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Quality of Life Research. 2010;19(6):853–864.
    1. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN. Comparing the performance of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in different patient groups. Acta Medica Portuguesa. 2014;27(2):236–245.
    1. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Chadjiapostolou Z, Arvanitaki E, Papadopoulos AA, Niakas D. Comparing the sensitivity of EQ-5D, SF-6D and 15D utilities to the specific effect of diabetic complications. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2012;13(1):111–120.
    1. Macran S, Weatherly H, Kind P. Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures. Medical Care. 2003;41(2):218–231.
    1. EuroQol Research Foundation. (2019). EQ-5D-5L User Guide Version 3.0: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. .
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Quality of Life Research. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
    1. EQ-5D website: EQ-5D-5L About. (2017). Retrieved 2019, from .
    1. Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):645–661.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
    1. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2014;14:135.
    1. Schafer JL. Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1999;8(1):3–15.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LA, de Vet HCW. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007;60(1):34–42.
    1. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20(1):37–46.
    1. Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1973;33:613–619.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86(2):420–428.
    1. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment. 1994;6(4):284–290.
    1. Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases. 1986;39(11):897–906.
    1. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1991;12(4 Suppl):142S–158S.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research. 2003;12(4):349–362.
    1. Payakachat N, Ali MM, Tilford JM. Can the EQ-5D detect meaningful change? A systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(11):1137–1154.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(2):102–109.
    1. Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge Academic; 1988.
    1. Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care. 2001;39(10):1039–1047.
    1. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. .
    1. Schwarzer G. meta: An R package for meta-analysis. R News. 2007;7(3):40–45.
    1. Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: Past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137.
    1. Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C. What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2018;19(4):557–570.
    1. Dyer MT, Goldsmith KA, Sharples LS, Buxton MJ. A review of health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cardiovascular disease. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2010;8:13.
    1. Finch AP, Dritsaki M, Jommi C. Generic preference-based measures for low back pain: Which of them should be used? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2016;41(6):E364–E374.
    1. Grobet C, Marks M, Tecklenburg L, Audige L. Application and measurement properties of EQ-5D to measure quality of life in patients with upper extremity orthopaedic disorders: A systematic literature review. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery. 2018;138(7):953–961.
    1. Pickard AS, Wilke CT, Lin HW, Lloyd A. Health utilities using the EQ-5D in studies of cancer. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(5):365–384.
    1. Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L. EQ-5D in skin conditions: An assessment of validity and responsiveness. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2015;16(9):927–939.
    1. Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic Medicine. 2011;28(4):395–413.
    1. Round J. Once bitten twice Shy: Thinking carefully before adopting the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):641–643.
    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 in Health. 2015;18(1):52–60.
    1. Geraerds AJLM, Bonsel GJ, Janssen MF, de Jongh MA, Spronk I, Polinder S, Haagsma JA. The added value of the EQ-5D with a cognition dimension in injury patients with and without traumatic brain injury. Quality of Life Research. 2019;28(7):1931–1939.
    1. Jelsma J, Maart S. Should additional domains be added to the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument for community-based studies? Population Health Metrics: An analytical descriptive study; 2015. p. 13.
    1. Parkin D, Devlin N, Feng Y. What determines the shape of an EQ-5D index distribution? Medical Decision Making. 2016;36(8):941–951.
    1. Kiadaliri AA, Eliasson B, Gerdtham UG. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13:145.
    1. Zhao Y, Li SP, Liu L, Zhang JL, Chen G. Does the choice of tariff matter? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L utility scores using Chinese, UK, and Japanese tariffs on patients with psoriasis vulgaris in Central South China. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96(34):e7840.
    1. Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, Janssen MF, Herdman M, van Hout B, Devlin N. Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets (vol 36, pg 699, 2018) Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):727–727.
    1. Gerlinger C, Bamber L, Leverkus F, Schwenke C, Haberland C, Schmidt G, Endrikat J. Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: Impact on the interpretation of clinical study results. BMC Research Notes. 2019;12(1):18.
    1. Yang F, Devlin N, Luo N. Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: Does how the utilities are derived matter? Value in Health. 2019;22(1):45–49.
    1. Lien K, Tam VC, Ko YJ, Mittmann N, Cheung MC, Chan KKW. Impact of country-specific EQ-5D-3L tariffs on the economic value of systemic therapies used in the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Current Oncology. 2015;22(6):E443–E452.
    1. EuroQol. (2018). Where is EQ-5D used? Retrieved December 03, 2019, from .
    1. Rencz F, Gulacsi L, Drummond M, Golicki D, Prevolnik Rupel V, Simon J, Stolk EA, Brodszky V, Baji P, Zavada J, Petrova G, Rotar A, Pentek M. EQ-5D in Central and eastern Europe: 2000-2015. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(11):2693–2710.
    1. Zrubka Z, Rencz F, Zavada J, Golicki D, Rupel VP, Simon J, Brodszky V, Baji P, Petrova G, Rotar A, Gulacsi L, Pentek M. EQ-5D studies in musculoskeletal and connective tissue diseases in eight Central and Eastern European countries: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Rheumatology International. 2017;37(12):1957–1977.
    1. Luo N, Li M, Chevalier J, Lloyd A, Herdman M. A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(8):2237–2243.
    1. Luo N, Li M, Liu G. Investigation of Labels for a 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system in Chinese. EuroQol Proceedings. 2009;26:77–102.
    1. Luo N, Li M, Liu GG, Lloyd A, de Charro C, Herdman M. Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(4):885–890.
    1. Luo N, Wang Y, How CH, Tay EG, Thumboo J, Herdman M. Interpretation and use of the 5-level EQ-5D response labels varied with survey language among Asians in Singapore. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(10):1195–1204.
    1. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Quantification of the level descriptors for the standard EQ-5D three-level system and a five-level version according to two methods. Quality of Life Research. 2008;17(3):463–473.
    1. Pickard AS, De Leon MC, Kohlmann T, Cella D, Rosenbloom S. Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care. 2007;45(3):259–263.
    1. Pickard AS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Bonsel G, Rosenbloom S, Cella D. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: Application of the Rasch model to a 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Medical Care. 2007;45(9):812–819.
    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. Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C, Bjorner JB. An exploratory study on using principal-component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to identify bolt-on dimensions: The EQ-5D case study. Value in Health. 2017;20(10):1362–1375.
    1. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies: A systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Medical Decision Making. 2014;34(1):8–20.
References for publications included for review
    1. Scalone L. Comparing the standard EQ-5D-3L versus 5L version for the assessment of health of patients with live diseases. EuroQol Proceedings. 2011;16:213–239.
    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. Quality of Life Research. 2012;21(6):1065–1073.
    1. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2012;10:132.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value. Health. 2012;15(5):708–715.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Oppe M, Devlin NJ. Lead versus lag-time trade-off variants: Does it make any difference? The European Journal of Health Economics. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S25–S31.
    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. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(7):1717–1727.
    1. Keeley T, Al-Janabi H, Lorgelly P, Coast J. A qualitative assessment of the content validity of the ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-5L and their appropriateness for use in health research. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12):e85287.
    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. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(8):2245–2253.
    1. Lee CF, Luo N, Ng R, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, Chia WK, Yee A, Krishna L, Wong C, Goh C, Cheung YB. Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(7):1745–1751.
    1. Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, Del PA, Cesana G, Mantovani LG. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research. 2013;22(7):1707–1716.
    1. Swan JS, Hur C, Lee P, Motazedi T, Donelan K. Responsiveness of the testing morbidities index in colonoscopy. Value in Health. 2013;16(6):1046–1053.
    1. Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Boye KS, Edson-Heredia E, Bowman L, Janssen B. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: Lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value. Health. 2013;16(8):1156–1162.
    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 and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74.
    1. Au N, Lorgelly PK. Anchoring vignettes for health comparisons: An analysis of response consistency. Quality of Life Research. 2014;23(6):1721–1731.
    1. Craig BM, Pickard AS, Lubetkin EI. Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2014;67(1):93–99.
    1. Garcia-Gordillo M, del Pozo-Cruz B, Adsuar JC, Sanchez-Martinez FI, Bellan-Perpinan JM. Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample. Quality of Life Research. 2014;23(4):1315–1326.
    1. Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stobel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brahler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research. 2014;23(2):443–447.
    1. Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, Gong XH, Zheng H, Wu ZH, Miao N, Sun XJ, Zhang L, Lv JJ, Yang F. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Quality of Life Research. 2014;23(8):2355–2363.
    1. Lin FJ, Pickard AS, Krishnan JA, Joo MJ, Au DH, Carson SS, Gillespie S, Henderson AG, Lindenauer PK, McBurnie MA, Mularski RA, Naureckas ET, Vollmer WM, Lee TA. Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2014;14:78.
    1. Mihalopoulos C, Chen G, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Richardson J. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;205(5):390–397.
    1. Whitehurst DG, Suryaprakash N, Engel L, Mittmann N, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. Perceptions of individuals living with spinal cord injury toward preference-based quality of life instruments: A qualitative exploration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12:50.
    1. Alvarado-Bolanos A, Cervantes-Arriaga A, Rodriguez-Violante M, Llorens-Arenas R, Calderon-Fajardo H, Millan-Cepeda R, Leal-Ortega R, Estrada-Bellmann I, Zuniga-Ramirez C. Convergent validation of EQ-5D-5L in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Journal of the Neurological Sciences. 2015;358(1–2):53–57.
    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. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(4):829–835.
    1. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Al KA, Noseworthy TW. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(7):1775–1784.
    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 and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13:171.
    1. Gamst-Klaussen T, Chen G, Lamu AN, Olsen JA. Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Quality of Life Research. 2015;25(7):1667–1678.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Buczek J, Karlinska A, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, Pickard AS. Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(4):845–850.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlinska A, Buczek J, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, Pickard AS. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(6):1555–1563.
    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. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2015;473(11):3383–3390.
    1. Luo N, Wang Y, How CH, Wong KY, Shen L, Tay EG, Thumboo J, Herdman M. Cross-cultural measurement equivalence of the EQ-5D-5L items for English-speaking Asians in Singapore. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(6):1565–1574.
    1. Mitchell PM, Al-Janabi H, Richardson J, Iezzi A, Coast J. The relative impacts of disease on health status and capability wellbeing: A multi-country study. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0143590.
    1. Mulhern B, O’Gorman H, Rotherham N, Brazier J. Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13:191.
    1. O’Leary E, Drummond FJ, Gavin A, Kinnear H, Sharp L. Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire in assessing health-related quality of life in prostate cancer survivors: A curate’s egg. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(9):2219–2230.
    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. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(7):1767–1774.
    1. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14.
    1. Richardson J, Chen G, Khan MA, Iezzi A. Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being? Medical Decision Making. 2015;35(3):292–304.
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(8):2045–2053.
    1. Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, Maxwell A. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Medical Decision Making. 2015;35(3):276–291.
    1. Sakthong P, Sonsa-Ardjit N, Sukarnjanaset P, Munpan W. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Quality of Life Research. 2015;24(12):3015–3022.
    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. Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health. 2015;12(3):e11457.
    1. Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Noto S, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: Eq-5d-3 l, Eq-5d-5 l, and Sf-6d. Value. Health. 2015;18(7):A738.
    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 and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2015;13:103.
    1. White J, Withers KL, Lencioni M, Carolan-Rees G, Wilkes AR, Wood KA, Patrick H, Cunningham D, Griffith M. Cardiff cardiac ablation patient-reported outcome measure (C-CAP): validation of a new questionnaire set for patients undergoing catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias in the UK. Quality of Life Research. 2015;25(6):1571–1583.
    1. Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, Vathsala A, Chia KS, Luo N. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) The European Journal of Health Economics. 2015;16(9):1019–1026.
    1. Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, Garay OU, Gianneo O, Fernandez G, Morales M, Gibbons L, Ramos-Goni JM. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(2):323–333.
    1. Chen P, Lin KC, Liing RJ, Wu CY, Chen CL, Chang KC. Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(6):1585–1596.
    1. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Antunes P. Comparing Eq-5d-3 l and Eq-5d-5 l in a general population. Value in Health. 2016;19(7):A477.
    1. Garcia-Gordillo MA, Collado-Mateo D, Olivares PR, Adsuar JC. Application of EQ-5D-5L questionnaire in patients suffering from urinary incontinence. Actas Urologicas Espanolas. 2016;40(7):457–462.
    1. Lamu AN, Olsen JA. The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis. Social Science and Medicine. 2016;152:176–185.
    1. McCaffrey N, Kaambwa B, Currow DC, Ratcliffe J. Health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L: South Australian population norms. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):133.
    1. Nolan CM, Longworth L, Lord J, Canavan JL, Jones SE, Kon SS, Man WD. The EQ-5D-5L health status questionnaire in COPD: Validity, responsiveness and minimum important difference. Thorax. 2016;71(6):493–500.
    1. Oremus M, Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K. Can the general public use vignettes to discriminate between Alzheimer’s disease health states? BMC Geriatrics. 2016;16:36.
    1. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, Chen G, Maxwell A. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making. 2016;36(2):147–159.
    1. Rogers KD, Pilling M, Davies L, Belk R, Nassimi-Green C, Young A. Translation, validity and reliability of the British Sign Language (BSL) version of the EQ-5D-5L. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25(7):1825–1834.
    1. Wang P, Luo N, Tai ES, Thumboo J. The EQ-5D-5L is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L in patients with diabetes in Singapore. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2016;9:57–62.
    1. Whitehurst DG, Mittmann N, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. Health state descriptions, valuations and individuals’ capacity to walk: A comparative evaluation of preference-based instruments in the context of spinal cord injury. Quality of Life Research. 2016;25:2481–2496.
    1. Bhadhuri A, Jowett S, Jolly K, Al-Janabi H. A comparison of the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D for measuring health spillovers: A study of the family impact of meningitis. Medical Decision Making. 2017;37(8):882–893.
    1. Feng Y, Herdman M, van Nooten F, Cleeland C, Parkin D, Ikeda S, Igarashi A, Devlin NJ. An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(8):2067–2078.
    1. Fermont, J. M., Blazeby, J. M., Rogers, C. A., Wordsworth, S., on behalf of the By-Band-Sleeve Study Management Group. (2017). The EQ-5D-5L is a valid approach to measure health related quality of life in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0189190.
    1. Huber MB, Felix J, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Health-related quality of life of the general German population in 2015: Results from the EQ-5D-5L. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14(4):426.
    1. Konnopka A, Koenig HH. The “no problems”-problem: An empirical analysis of ceiling effects on the EQ-5D 5L. Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(8):2079–2084.
    1. Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Hoang Le QN, Tran TT, Latkin CA. Quality of life profile of general Vietnamese population using EQ-5D-5L. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):199.
    1. Poor AK, Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulacsi L, Beretzky Z, Hidvegi B, Hollo P, Karpati S, Pentek M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research. 2017;26(12):3409–3419.
    1. Yfantopoulos J, Chantzaras A, Kontodimas S. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research. 2017;309(5):357–370.
    1. Yfantopoulos JN, Chantzaras AE. Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2017;18(4):519–531.
    1. Batt K, Boggio L, Neff A, Buckner TW, Wang M, Quon D, Witkop M, Recht M, Kessler C, Iyer NN, Cooper DL. Patient-reported outcomes and joint status across subgroups of US adults with hemophilia with varying characteristics: Results from the Pain, Functional Impairment, and Quality of Life (P-FiQ) study. European Journal of Haematology. 2018;100(Suppl 1):14–24.
    1. Bewick J, Morris S, Hopkins C, Erskine S, Philpott CM. Health utility reporting in chronic rhinosinusitis patients. Clinical Otolaryngology. 2018;43(1):90–95.
    1. Bilbao A, Garcia-Perez L, Arenaza JC, Garcia I, Ariza-Cardiel G, Trujillo-Martin E, Forjaz MJ, Martin-Fernandez J. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(11):2897–2908.
    1. Buckner TW, Sidonio R, Jr, Guelcher C, Kessler CM, Witkop M, Clark D, Owens W, Fridman M, Iyer NN, Cooper DL. Reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome instruments in US adults with hemophilia B and caregivers in the B-HERO-S study. European Journal of Haematology. 2018;101(6):781–790.
    1. Camacho EM, Shields G, Lovell K, Coventry PA, Morrison AP, Davies LM. A (five-)level playing field for mental health conditions?: Exploratory analysis of EQ-5D-5L-derived utility values. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(3):717–724.
    1. Campbell JA, Hensher M, Neil A, Venn A, Wilkinson S, Palmer AJ. An exploratory study of long-term publicly waitlisted bariatric surgery patients’ quality of life before and 1 year after bariatric surgery, and considerations for healthcare planners. Pharmacoeconomics-Open. 2018;2(1):63–76.
    1. Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Cheung JPY. Differential psychometric properties of EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level and short-form 6-dimension utility measures in low back pain. Spine. 2018;44(11):E679–E686.
    1. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Noseworthy TW. Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(5):1311–1322.
    1. Crick K, Al Sayah F, Ohinmaa A, Johnson JA. Responsiveness of the anxiety/depression dimension of the 3- and 5-level versions of the EQ-5D in assessing mental health. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(6):1625–1633.
    1. Easton T, Milte R, Crotty M, Ratcliffe J. An empirical comparison of the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-Proxy-U for older people in residential care. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(5):1283–1294.
    1. Efthymiadou O, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Differentiation of health-related quality of life outcomes between five disease areas: Results from an international survey of patients. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2018;34(5):498–506.
    1. Engel L, Chen G, Richardson J, Mihalopoulos C. The impact of depression on health-related quality of life and wellbeing: Identifying important dimensions and assessing their inclusion in multi-attribute utility instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(11):2873–2884.
    1. Fan X, Wang D, Hellman B, Janssen MF, Bakker G, Coghlan R, Hursey A, Matthews H, Whetstone I. Assessment of health-related quality of life between people with Parkinson’s disease and non-Parkinson’s: Using data drawn from the ‘100 for Parkinson’s’ Smartphone-Based Prospective Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018;15(11):2538.
    1. Gamst-Klaussen T, Gudex C, Olsen JA. Exploring the causal and effect nature of EQ-5D dimensions: An application of confirmatory tetrad analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):153.
    1. Ge L, Ong R, Yap CW, Heng BH. Effects of chronic diseases on health-related quality of life and self-rated health among three adult age groups. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2018;21(2):214–222.
    1. Hernandez G, Garin O, Pardo Y, Vilagut G, Pont A, Suarez M, Neira M, Rajmil L, Gorostiza I, Ramallo-Farina Y, Cabases J, Alonso J, Ferrer M. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and reference norms for the Spanish population. Quality of Life Research. 2018;27(9):2337–2348.
    1. Huber M, Vogelmann M, Leidl R. Valuing health-related quality of life: Systematic variation in health perception. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):156.
    1. Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–697.
    1. Kohler S, Sidney Annerstedt K, Diwan V, Lindholm L, Randive B, Vora K, De Costa A. Postpartum quality of life in Indian women after vaginal birth and cesarean section: A pilot study using the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):427.
    1. Lagendijk M, van Egdom LSE, van Veen FEE, Vos EL, Mureau MAM, van Leeuwen N, Hazelzet JA, Lingsma HF, Koppert LB. Patient-reported outcome measures may add value in breast cancer surgery. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018;25(12):3563–3571.
    1. Marti-Pastor M, Pont A, Avila M, Garin O, Vilagut G, Forero CG, Pardo Y, Tresserras R, Medina-Bustos A, Garcia-Codina O, Cabases J, Rajmil L, Alonso J, Ferrer M. Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics. 2018;16(1):14.
    1. McClure NS, Sayah FA, Ohinmaa A, Johnson JA. Minimally important difference of the EQ-5D-5L index score in adults with type 2 diabetes. Value in Health. 2018;21(9):1090–1097.
    1. Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, Fitriana TS, Sadarjoen SS, Passchier J, Busschbach JJV. Quality of life of the Indonesian general population: Test-retest reliability and population norms of the EQ-5D-5L and WHOQOL-BREF. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0197098.
    1. Szentes BL, Kreuter M, Bahmer T, Birring SS, Claussen M, Waelscher J, Leidl R, Schwarzkopf L. Quality of life assessment in interstitial lung diseases: A comparison of the disease-specific K-BILD with the generic EQ-5D-5L. Respiratory Research. 2018;19(1):101.
    1. Tamasi B, Brodszky V, Pentek M, Gulacsi L, Hajdu K, Sardy M, Szegedi A, Bata-Csorgo Z, Kinyo A, Rencz F. Validity of the EQ-5D in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. British Journal of Dermatology. 2018;180(4):802–809.
    1. Thaweethamcharoen T, Noparatayaporn P, Sritippayawan S, Aiyasanon N. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai patients on peritoneal dialysis. Value in Health Regional Issues. 2018;18:59–64.
    1. Whalley D, Globe G, Crawford R, Doward L, Tafesse E, Brazier J, Price D. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):160.
    1. Wijnen BFM, Mosweu I, Majoie M, Ridsdale L, de Kinderen RJA, Evers S, McCrone P. A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2018;19(6):861–870.
    1. Chuang LH, Cohen AT, Agnelli G, Gumbs PD, Bauersachs R, Kroep S, Gitt AK, Monreal M, Willich SN, van Hout B. Comparison of quality of life measurements: EQ-5D-5L versus disease/treatment-specific measures in pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Quality of Life Research. 2019;28(5):1155–1177.
    1. Gandhi M, Ang M, Teo K, Wong CW, Wei YC, Tan RL, Janssen MF, Luo N. EQ-5D-5L is more responsive than EQ-5D-3L to treatment benefit of cataract surgery. Patient. 2019;12(4):383–392.
    1. Gao L, Moodie M, Chen G. Measuring subjective wellbeing in patients with heart disease: Relationship and comparison between health-related quality of life instruments. Quality of Life Research. 2019;28(4):1017–1028.
    1. Hernandez G, Garin O, Dima AL, Pont A, Marti Pastor M, Alonso J, Van Ganse E, Laforest L, de Bruin M, Mayoral K, Serra-Sutton V, Ferrer M. EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) validity in assessing the quality of life in adults with asthma: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2019;21(1):e10178.
    1. Kouwenberg CAE, Kranenburg LW, Visser MS, Busschbach JJ, Mureau MAM. The validity of the EQ-5D-5L in measuring quality of life benefits of breast reconstruction. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery. 2019;72(1):52–61.
    1. Rencz F, Lakatos PL, Gulacsi L, Brodszky V, Kurti Z, Lovas S, Banai J, Herszenyi L, Cserni T, Molnar T, Pentek M, Palatka K. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Quality of Life Research. 2019;28(1):141–152.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi