Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain

Value in Health

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 606-612

  Søgaard, Rikke ^a   Christensen, Finn Bjarke ^b   Videbæk, Tina Senholt ^c   Bünger, Cody ^c   Christiansen, Terkel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^b AALBORG UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^c AARHUS UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health related quality of life; Low back pain; SF 6D

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHRONIC PAIN; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EUROPEAN QUALITY OF LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE 5D; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SHORT FORM 6D; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT PREFERENCE; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINAL FUSION; TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 66249123907     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

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 : 873 84.
2. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, et al. A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >/=45 years. Health Econ 2008 17 : 815 32.
3. Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP, et al. Not all "quality-adjusted life years" are equal. J Clin Epidemiol 2007 60 : 616 24.
4. Wee HL, Machin D, Loke WC, et al. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health 2007 10 : 256 65.
5. 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 : 485 95.
6. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003 41 : 791 801.
7. 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 2008 online first on Mar 9, 2008 JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003 56 : 317 25.
8. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005 14 : 1321 32.
9. Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005 14 : 1169 89.
10. EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990 16 : 199 208.
11. The MVH Group. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Report on the Modelling of Valuation Tariffs. York : University of York, 1995.
12. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Health Econ 1996 5 : 141 54.
13. Badia X, Roset M, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making 2001 21 : 7 16. (Pubitemid 32245026)
14. Wittrup-Jensen KU, Lauridsen JT, Gudex C, et al. Estimating Danish EQ-5D tariffs using TTO and VAS. In : Norinder A, Pedersen K, Roos P, eds, Proceedings of the 18th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group (1st ed.). Copenhagen : IHE, The Swedish Institute for Health Economics, 2002.
15. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ 2002 11 : 341 53.
16. Jelsma J, Hansen K, De Weerdt W, et al. How do Zimbabweans value health states? Popul Health Metr 2003 1 : 1 11.
17. Greiner W. Health economic evaluation of disease management programs: the German example. Eur J Health Econ 2005 6 : 191 6.
18. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care 2005 43 : 203 20.
19. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, et al. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ 2006 15 : 1121 32.
20. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998 51 : 1115 28.
21. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002 21 : 271 92.
22. Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, et al. The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ 2002 11 : 71 85. (Pubitemid 34097623)
23. Solberg TK, Olsen JA, Ingebrigtsen T, et al. Health-related quality of life assessment by the EuroQol-5D can provide cost-utility data in the field of low-back surgery. Eur Spine J 2005 14 : 1000 7.
24. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ 1999 8 : 41 51. (Pubitemid 29057354)
25. Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ 2006 25 : 334 46.
26. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics 2007 25 : 93 106. (Pubitemid 46175547)
27. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999 4 : 174 84.
28. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Eiskjaer SP, et al. Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine 2002 27 : 2674 83.
29. Christensen FB, Hansen ES, Laursen M, et al. Long-term functional outcome of pedicle screw instrumentation as a support for posterolateral spinal fusion: randomized clinical study with a 5-year follow-up. Spine 2002 27 : 1269 77.
30. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986 1 : 307 10.
31. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999 8 : 135 60.
32. Boonen A, van der HD, Landewe R, et al. How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Ann Rheum Dis 2007 66 : 771 7.
33. 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 : 1523 32.
34. Bjorner JB, Damsgaard MT, Watt T, et al. Dansk Manual til SF-36 [Danish Manual to the SF-36]. København : Lægemidelforeningen (LIF), 1997.
35. Ware JE. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston : Nimrod Press, 1993.
36. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, et al. Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 1995 33 (Suppl. 4 S264 79.