Validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings: a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing amalgam removal

Admassu N Lamu, Lars Björkman, Harald J Hamre, Terje Alræk, Frauke Musial, Bjarne Robberstad, Admassu N Lamu, Lars Björkman, Harald J Hamre, Terje Alræk, Frauke Musial, Bjarne Robberstad

Abstract

Background: Evidence of health utility changes in patients who suffer from longstanding health complaints attributed to dental amalgam fillings are limited. The change in health utility outcomes enables calculating quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and facilitates the comparison with other health conditions. The purpose of this study was to estimate the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities following removal of dental amalgam fillings in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings, and examine the ability of these instruments to detect minimally important changes over time.

Methods: Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms, which they attributed to dental amalgam restorations, were recruited to a prospective cohort study in Norway. Two health state utility instruments, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, as well as self-reported general health complaints (GHC-index) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) were administered to all patients (n = 32) at baseline and at follow-up. The last two were used as criteria measures. Concurrent and predictive validities were examined using correlation coefficients. Responsiveness was assessed by the effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and relative efficiency. Minimally important change (MIC) was examined by distribution and anchor-based approaches.

Results: Concurrent validity of the EQ-5D-5L was similar to that of SF-6D utility. EQ-5D-5L was more responsive than SF-6D: the ES were 0.73 and 0.58 for EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, respectively; SRM were 0.76 and 0.67, respectively. EQ-5D-5L was more efficient than SF-6D in detecting changes, but both were less efficient compared to criteria-based measures. The estimated MIC of EQ-5D-5L value set was 0.108 and 0.118 based on distribution and anchor-based approaches, respectively. The corresponding values for SF-6D were 0.048 and 0.064, respectively.

Conclusions: In patients with health complaints attributed to dental amalgam undergoing amalgam removal, both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D showed reasonable concurrent and predictive validity and acceptable responsiveness. The EQ-5D-5L utility appears to be more responsive compared to SF-6D. Trial registration The research was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov., NCT01682278. Registered 10 September 2012, https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01682278 .

Keywords: EQ-5D-5L; Minimally important change; Responsiveness; SF-6D; Utility; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Box plots showing distributions of health outcomes at the baseline and follow-up for amalgam patients. A box indicates the positions of the upper and lower quartiles; the interior of the box indicates the interquartile range; the crossbar (middle line) that intersects the box shows the median of the dataset; a whisker (line) that extends to the extreme of the distribution from lower hinge and upper hinge indicates the minimum and maximum values, respectively. EQ-5D-5L EuroQol 5-dimensional 5-level questionnaire; EQ-5D-CW EQ-5D cross-walk value set; SF-6D Short-form 6-dimension; GHCr (reversed) general health complaints; EQ-VAS (EuroQol) visual analogue scale; HSU Health state utility

References

    1. Bates MN. Mercury amalgam dental fillings: an epidemiologic assessment. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2006;209(4):309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2005.11.006.
    1. Kristoffersen AE, Musial F, Hamre HJ, Björkman L, Stub T, Salamonsen A, Alræk T. Use of complementary and alternative medicine in patients with health complaints attributed to former dental amalgam fillings. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016;16:22. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-0996-1.
    1. Melchart D, Vogt S, Kohler W, Streng A, Weidenhammer W, Kremers L, Hickel R, Felgenhauer N, Zilker T, Wuhr E, Halbach S. Treatment of health complaints attributed to amalgam. J Dent Res. 2008;87(4):349–353. doi: 10.1177/154405910808700410.
    1. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
    1. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033.
    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. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.
    1. Olsen JA, Lamu AN, Cairns J. In search of a common currency: a comparison of seven EQ-5D-5L value sets. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):39–49. doi: 10.1002/hec.3606.
    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) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
    1. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L Valuation: Standard value sets. The EuroQol Group. 2020. . Accessed 15 Nov 2020.
    1. NICE . Methods for the development of NICE Public Health Guidance: NICE process and methods guides. 3. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2012.
    1. NoMA. Guidelines for the submission of documentation for single technology assessment (STA) of pharmaceuticals. Oslo: The Norwegian Medicines Agency (NoMA). 2020. . Accessed 10 June 2020.
    1. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng Y-S, 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
    1. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, Busschbach J, Boye KS. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8.
    1. Wisløff T, Hagen G, Hamidi V, Movik E, Klemp M, Olsen JA. Estimating QALY gains in applied studies: a review of cost-utility analyses published in 2010. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(4):367–375. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0136-z.
    1. Feng Y-S, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2020;30:647–673. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02688-y.
    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. Hernandez G, Garin O, Pardo Y, Vilagut G, Pont À, Suárez M, Neira M, Rajmil L, Gorostiza I, Ramallo-Fariña Y, et al. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and reference norms for the Spanish population. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(9):2337–2348. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1877-5.
    1. Hinz A, Kohlmann T, Stöbel-Richter Y, Zenger M, Brähler E. The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):443–447. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2.
    1. Młyńczak K, Golicki D. Validity of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire among the general population of Poland. Qual Life Res. 2020;30:817–829. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02667-3.
    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. 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(1):74. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.
    1. Campolina AG, López RVM, Nardi EP, Ferraz MB. Internal Consistency of the SF-6D as a Health Status Index in the Brazilian Urban Population. Value Health Reg Issues. 2018;17:74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2018.02.003.
    1. Luo N, Wang P, Fu AZ, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey. Med Care. 2012;50(7):627–632. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31824d7471.
    1. Baxter S, Sanderson K, Venn A, Otahal P, Palmer AJ. Construct validity of SF-6D health state utility values in an employed population. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(4):851–870. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0823-4.
    1. Kangwanrattanakul K. A comparison of measurement properties between UK SF-6D and English EQ-5D-5L and Thai EQ-5D-5L value sets in general Thai population. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2020;1–10.
    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. Zhao L, Liu X, Liu D, He Y, Liu Z, Li N. Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in the general population of Chengdu city in China. Medicine. 2019;98(11):e14719. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014719.
    1. Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Jones ML, Paisley S, O'Cathain A, Barkham M, et al. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):1–188. doi: 10.3310/hta18340.
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–884. doi: 10.1002/hec.866.
    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. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(6):1585–1596. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z.
    1. Engel L, Bryan S, Evers SMAA, Dirksen CD, Noonan VK, Whitehurst DGT. Exploring psychometric properties of the SF-6D, a preference-based health-related quality of life measure, in the context of spinal cord injury. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2383–2393. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0677-9.
    1. Goodwin PC, Ratcliffe J, Morris J, Morrissey MC. Using the knee-specific Hughston Clinic Questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery: a comparison of psychometric properties. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1437–1446. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9880-0.
    1. Khanna D, Furst DE, Wong WK, Tsevat J, Clements PJ, Park GS, Postlethwaite AE, Ahmed M, Ginsburg S, Hays RD, Ron D. Hays for the Scleroderma Collagen Type 1 Study Group Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1083–1092. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9207-3.
    1. Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and Diabetes Health Profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:42. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-42.
    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. Glossary Health outcomes methodology. Med Care. 2000;38(9):II7–II13.
    1. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523–1532. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.
    1. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(1):12–20. doi: 10.1007/s00586-002-0464-0.
    1. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81–87. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90036-1.
    1. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407–415. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6.
    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. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(8):882–893. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17706355.
    1. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, McCoy MJ, Verstappen SMM, Watson K, Symmons DPM, The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium, on behalf of the BSRBR The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1195–1205. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9539-2.
    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. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207782.
    1. Björkman L, Musial F, Alraek T, Werner EL, Weidenhammer W, Hamre HJ. Removal of dental amalgam restorations in patients with health complaints attributed to amalgam: a prospective cohort study. J Oral Rehabil. 2020;47(11):1422–1434. doi: 10.1111/joor.13080.
    1. Stavem K, Augestad LA, Kristiansen IS, Rand K. General population norms for the EQ-5D-3L in Norway: comparison of postal and web surveys. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):204. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1029-1.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002.
    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. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–859. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000135827.18610.0d.
    1. Loge HJ, Kaasa S. Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey: normative data from the general Norwegian population. Scand J Soc Med. 1998;26(4):250–258. doi: 10.1177/14034948980260040401.
    1. Jacobsen EL, Bye A, Aass N, Fosså SD, Grotmol KS, Kaasa S, Loge JH, Moum T, Hjermstad MJ. Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1201–1212. doi: 10.1007/s11136-017-1684-4.
    1. Sjursen TT, Lygre GB, Dalen K, Helland V, LæGreid T, Svahn J, Lundekvam BF, Björkman L. Changes in health complaints after removal of amalgam fillings. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38(11):835–848. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02223.x.
    1. Kaplan MS, Berthelot JM, Feeny D, McFarland BH, Khan S, Orpana H. The predictive validity of health-related quality of life measures: mortality in a longitudinal population-based study. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(9):1539–1546. doi: 10.1007/s11136-007-9256-7.
    1. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52(4):281–302. doi: 10.1037/h0040957.
    1. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S178–189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    1. Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(1):79–93. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00296-X.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(5):395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB. The minimal detectable change should not replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):804–805. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.015.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54–54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582–592.
    1. Le QA, Doctor JN, Zoellner LA, Feeny NC. Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): results from a Doubly Randomized Preference Trial (DRPT) Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:59. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-59.
    1. Terluin B, Eekhout I, Terwee CB, de Vet HCW. Minimal important change (MIC) based on a predictive modeling approach was more precise than MIC based on ROC analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1388–1396. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.015.
    1. Mehta CR, Patel NR. Exact logistic regression: theory and examples. Stat Med. 1995;14(19):2143–2160. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780141908.
    1. Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    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. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–1563. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.
    1. Barnett AG, van der Pols JC, Dobson AJ. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(1):215–220. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh299.
    1. Hamre HJ, Glockmann A, Kienle GS, Kiene H. Combined bias suppression in single-arm therapy studies. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):923–929. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00903.x.
    1. Lamu AN, Gamst-Klaussen T, Olsen JA. Preference weighting of health state values: what difference does it make, and why? Value in Health. 2017;20(3):451–457. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.002.
    1. Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(1):15–23. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0097-2.
    1. Pickard AS, Wang Z, Walton SM, Lee TA. Are decisions using cost-utility analyses robust to choice of SF-36/SF-12 preference-based algorithm? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:11. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-11.
    1. van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4(1):20. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-20.
    1. Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, Vilagut G, Brugulat P, Herdman M, Mompart A, Medina A, Pardo Y, Alonso J, et al. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):853–864. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9639-z.
    1. Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW, Jr, Schuler TC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541–546. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera