Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 31, Issue 6, 2011, Pages

  Whitehurst, David G T ^a,b   Bryan, Stirling ^a   Lewis, Martyn ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

cost utility analysis; decision analysis; economic evaluation; EQ 5D; health services research; preferences; quality of life; SF 6D; systematic review; utility assessment

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; REVIEW;

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 80955157844     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X11421529     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. Bryan S, Williams I, McIver S. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 2007; 16 (2). 179-93 (Pubitemid 46206612)
2. Williams I, McIver S, Moore D, Bryan S. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess. 2008; 12 (7). 1-175
3. Raftery J. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Brit Med J. 2001; 323 (7324). 1300-3 (Pubitemid 33135166)
4. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995 :
5. Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3 rd ed.Ottawa: CADTH; 2006. Ottawa: CADTH; 2006 :
6. Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M New York: Oxford University Press; 1996 :
7. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondsraad); 1999 :
8. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008 :
9. Brazier J, Akehurst R, Brennan A, et al. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005; 4 (4). 201-8 (Pubitemid 43242208)
10. McGuire A Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice. Drummond MF Maguire A, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001: 1-21.
11. Torrance GW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006; 24 (11). 1069-78 (Pubitemid 44683364)
12. Dolan P Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice. Drummond MF Maguire A, ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001: 46-67.
13. Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56 (4). 317-25 (Pubitemid 36593310)
14. Brazier J, Deverill M. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999; 8 (1). 41-51 (Pubitemid 29057354)
15. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001 ; 33 (5). 375-84 (Pubitemid 32675379)
16. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Osborne R Qual Life Res. 1999: 209-24.
17. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996; 37 (1). 53-72 (Pubitemid 26191458)
18. 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). 271-92 (Pubitemid 34143147)
19. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004; 42 (9). 851-9 (Pubitemid 39456916)
20. Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001; 33: 328-36 (Pubitemid 32675373)
21. 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 (2). 334-46 (Pubitemid 43288929)
22. Ratcliffe J, Brazier J, Palfreyman S, Michaels J. A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients. Health Econ. 2007; 16 (4). 395-405 (Pubitemid 46566852)
23. Ratcliffe J, Buxton M, Young T, Longworth L. Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005; 4 (4). 249-55 (Pubitemid 43242213)
24. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, Harper R, Booth A. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999; 3 (9). 1-164
25. McDonough CM, Tosteson AN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007; 25 (2). 93-106 (Pubitemid 46175547)
26. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol. 2005; 44 (3). 157-63 (Pubitemid 40694911)
27. Maes IH, Joore MA, Cima RF, Vlaeyen JW, Anteunis LJ. Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: a comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III. Ear Hear. 2011 ; 32 (4). 428-35
28. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be?. Value Health. 2011; 14 (4). 531-8
29. 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). 873-84 (Pubitemid 39264234)
30. Lillegraven S, Kristiansen IS, Kvien TK. Comparison of utility measures and their relationship with other health status measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010; 69 (10). 1762-7
31. Marra CA, Esdaile JM, Guh D, et al. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004; 42 (11). 1125-31 (Pubitemid 39472119)
32. Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13 (10). 1659-70 (Pubitemid 41215246)
33. 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). 485-95
34. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference- based instruments. Med Care. 2003 ; 41 (7). 791-801
35. Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health. 2010; 13 (2). 222-9
36. Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter?. Med Care. 2009; 47 (8). 889-94
37. Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003; 12 (12). 1061-7 (Pubitemid 38035310)
38. Aletras VH, Kontodimopoulos N, Niakas DA, et al. Valuation and preliminary validation of the Greek 15D in a sample of patients with coronary artery disease. Value Health. 2009; 12 (4). 574-9
39. Brazier JE, Fukuhara S, Roberts J, et al. Estimating a preference- based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62 (12). 1323-31
40. Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, Brazier J, Rowen D. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010; 13 (5). 624-30
41. Petrou S, Kupek E. Estimating preference-based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Med Decis Making. 2009; 29 (3). 291-303
42. 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 (3). 203-20 (Pubitemid 40353904)
43. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001; 33 (5). 337-43 (Pubitemid 32675374)
44. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995 :
45. 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 (11). 1115-28 (Pubitemid 28527167)
46. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30 (6). 473-83
47. Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996; 34 (3). 220-33 (Pubitemid 126433231)
48. PROM Bibliography Database. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Group, University of Oxford. Available from: http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk.
49. Fejer R, Jordan A, Hartvigsen J. Categorising the severity of neck pain: establishment of cut-points for use in clinical and epidemiological research. Pain. 2005; 119 (1-3). 176-82 (Pubitemid 41752977)
50. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60 (1). 34-42 (Pubitemid 44856236)
51. Joore MA, Brunenberg D. Exploring patterns of differences between EQ-5D and SF-6D: a systematic review. Presented at the 6th International Health Economics Association World Congress; Copenhagen;;.
52. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, et al. A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >or= 45 years. Health Econ. 2008; 17 (7). 815-32
53. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1 (8476). 307-10 (Pubitemid 16134762)
54. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 420-7
55. Shrout PE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998; 7 (3). 301-17 (Pubitemid 28475274)
56. Bansback N, Marra C, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57 (6). 963-71 (Pubitemid 47237321)
57. Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004; 3 (2). 103-5 (Pubitemid 41018308)
58. Barton GR, Sach TH, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Muir KR. An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. Eur J Health Econ. 2008; 9 (3). 237-49 (Pubitemid 351962397)
59. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Doherty M, Jenkinson C, Muir KR. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009; 7: 12
60. Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé 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 (6). 771-7 (Pubitemid 46846696)
61. Boonen A, Patel V, Traina S, Chiou CF, Maetzel A, Tsuji W. Rapid and sustained improvement in health-related quality of life and utility for 72 weeks in patients with ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept. J Rheumatol. 2008; 35 (4). 662-7 (Pubitemid 351500063)
62. Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, Niecko T, Miller DW, Townsend RJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn's Disease Activity Index in Crohn's disease and measures of utility. Value Health. 2007; 10 (3). 214-20 (Pubitemid 46802279)
63. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005 ; 46 (11). 4016-23 (Pubitemid 44264600)
64. Ferreira PL, Ferreira LN, Pereira LN. How consistent are health utility values?. Qual Life Res. 2008; 17 (7). 1031-42
65. Gerard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004; 3 (2). 91-102 (Pubitemid 41018307)
66. Glasziou P, Alexander J, Beller E, Clarke P. Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007; 5: 21
67. 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
68. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, et al. British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009 ; 18 (9). 1195-205
69. Harrison MJ, Lunt M, Verstappen SM, Watson KD, Bansback NJ, Symmons DP. Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the health assessment questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010; 8: 21
70. Hawthorne G Value Health. 2009: 948-57.
71. Kontodimopoulos N, Aletras VH, Paliouras D, Niakas D. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health. 2009; 12 (8). 1151-7
72. Kontodimopoulos N, Pappa E, Papadopoulos AA, Tountas Y, Niakas D. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18 (1). 87-97
73. Kvamme MK, Kristiansen IS, Lie E, Kvien TK. Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 2010; 37 (1). 26-31
74. Lamers LM, Bouwmans CA, van Straten A, Donker MC, Hakkaart L. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006; 15 (11). 1229-36 (Pubitemid 44696950)
75. Langfitt JT, Vickrey BG, McDermott MP, et al. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2006; 15 (5). 899-914 (Pubitemid 43800761)
76. Lillegraven S, Kvien TK. Measuring disability and quality of life in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007; 21 (5). 827-40 (Pubitemid 47377806)
77. Mann R, Gilbody S, Richards D. Putting the 'Q' in depression QALYs: a comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D health related quality of life measures. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009; 44 (7). 569-78
78. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. 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). 1571-82 (Pubitemid 40126441)
79. McCrone P, Patel A, Knapp M, et al. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009; 12 (1). 27-31
80. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN. 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 (5). 1321-32 (Pubitemid 40895754)
81. McKenna SP, Ratcliffe J, Meads DM, Brazier JE. Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008; 6: 65
82. McTaggart-Cowan HM, Marra CA, Yang Y, et al. The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status. Qual Life Res. 2008; 17 (3). 453-62
83. Michaels JA, Campbell WB, Brazier JE, et al. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technol Assess. 2006; 10 (13). 1-196
84. Michaels JA, Campbell WB, King BM, et al. A prospective randomised controlled trial and economic modelling of antimicrobial silver dressings versus non-adherent control dressings for venous leg ulcers: the VULCAN trial. Health Technol Assess. 2009 ; 13 (56). 1-114
85. Osnes-Ringen H, Kvien TK, Henriksen JE, Mowinckel P, Dagfinrud H. Orthopaedic surgery in 255 patients with inflammatory arthropathies: longitudinal effects on pain, physical function and health-related quality of life. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009; 68 (10). 1596-601
86. 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 (11). 1169-89 (Pubitemid 41645379)
87. Petrou S, Morrell J, Spiby H. Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7: 40
88. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14 (1). 207-19 (Pubitemid 40249095)
89. Quercioli C, Messina G, Barbini E, Carriero G, Fani M, Nante N. Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools. Eur J Health Econ. 2009; 10: 389-97
90. Russell AS, Conner-Spady B, Mintz A, Maksymowych WP. The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol. 2003; 30 (5). 941-7 (Pubitemid 36529611)
91. Sach TH, Barton GR, Doherty M, Muir KR, Jenkinson C, Avery AJ. The relationship between body mass index and health- related quality of life: comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007; 31 (1). 189-96 (Pubitemid 46006033)
92. Seymour J, McNamee P, Scott A, Tinelli M. Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ. 2010; 19 (6). 683-96
93. Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bünger C, Christiansen T. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health. 2009; 12 (4). 606-12
94. Stavem K, Frøland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference- based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14 (4). 971-80 (Pubitemid 40685221)
95. Szende A, Svensson K, Ståhl E, Mészáros A, Berta GY. Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004; 22 (8). 537-47 (Pubitemid 38858296)
96. Teng YK, Verburg RJ, Sont JK, van den Hout WB, Breedveld FC, van Laar JM. Long-term followup of health status in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis after high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Arthritis Rheum. 2005; 52 (8). 2272-6 (Pubitemid 41117409)
97. Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Ratcliffe J, et al. Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technol Assess. 2005; 9 (32). 1-109
98. van den Hout WB, de Jong Z, Munneke M, Hazes JM, Breedveld FC, Vliet Vlieland TP. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses of a long-term, high-intensity exercise program compared with conventional physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005; 53 (1). 39-47 (Pubitemid 40216350)
99. van den Hout WB, Peul WC, Koes BW, Brand R, Kievit J, Thomeer RT. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008; 336 (7657). 1351-4 (Pubitemid 351914625)
100. 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: 20
101. 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 (4). 256-65
102. Willems DC, Joore MA, Hendriks JJ, Wouters EF, Severens JL. Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2007; 5: 10
103. Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. Comparison of the EuroQol and Short Form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007; 57 (6). 1043-9 (Pubitemid 47237332)
104. Savigny P, Kuntze S, Watson P, et al Full Guideline. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009 :
105. Kharroubi SA, Brazier JE, Roberts J, O'Hagan A. Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 2007; 26 (3). 597-612 (Pubitemid 46562487)
106. Longworth L, Longson C. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted?. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26 (9). 729-32