Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Volumn 14, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Johnsen, Lars G ^a,b   Hellum, Christian ^c   Nygaard, Øystein P ^a,b   Storheim, Kjersti ^c,e   Brox, Jens I ^c   Rossvoll, Ivar ^a,b   Leivseth, Gunnar ^d   Grotle, Margreth ^f,g  

^a TRONDHEIM UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Norway)

^c OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^f FORMI   (Norway)

^g OSLO METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

EQ5D; Health economics; Low back pain; Lumbar disc prosthesis; Measurement properties; Outcome assessment; SF6D; Utility measures

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; EUROSCORE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LOW BACK PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; MULTICENTER STUDY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; PROSTHESIS; PSYCHOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SHORT FORM 6D; STRUCTURAL VALIDITY; TREATMENT DURATION; VALIDITY;

ADULT; CHRONIC PAIN; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; ROC CURVE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 84876674538     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712474     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-148     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Brazier J, Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation New York: Oxford University Press 2007
2. Health state values from multiattribute utility instruments need correction. Nord E, Ann Med 2001 33 5 371 374 10.3109/07853890109002091 11491196 (Pubitemid 32675378)
3. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M, J Health Econ 2002 21 2 271 292 10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8 11939242 (Pubitemid 34143147)
4. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Dolan P, Med Care 1997 35 11 1095 1108 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 9366889 (Pubitemid 127453463)
5. Drummond MF, Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes, 3rd edn. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press 2005
6. A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >or= 45 years. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes DK, Muir KR, Health Econ 2008 17 7 815 832 10.1002/hec.1298 17893863
7. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J, Health Econ 2004 13 9 873 884 10.1002/hec.866 15362179 (Pubitemid 39264234)
8. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Grieve R, Grishchenko M, Cairns J, Eur J Health Econ 2009 10 1 15 23 10.1007/s10198-008-0097-2 18327677
9. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR, Med Care 2009 47 8 889 894 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a39428 19584759
10. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in Long-Lasting Low Back Pain Source: Value in Health 12, no. 4 (2009): 606-612 Additional Info: Blackwell Publishing; 20090601 Standard No: ISSN: 1098-3015. Soegaard R, Value Health 2009 12 4 606 612 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x 19900258
11. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Sogaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, Bunger C, Christiansen T, Value Health 2009 12 4 606 612 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x 19900258
12. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Bland JM, Altman DG, Lancet 1986 1 8476 307 310 2868172 (Pubitemid 16134762)
13. Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? Bryan S, Longworth L, Eur J Health Econ 2005 6 3 253 260 10.1007/s10198-005-0299-9 15968563 (Pubitemid 41638849)
14. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Longworth L, Bryan S, Health Econ 2003 12 12 1061 1067 10.1002/hec.787 14673814 (Pubitemid 38035310)
15. Surgery with disc prosthesis versus rehabilitation in patients with low back pain and degenerative disc: two year follow-up of randomised study. Hellum C, Johnsen LG, Storheim K, Nygaard OP, Brox JI, Rossvoll I, Ro M, Sandvik L, Grundnes O, BMJ 2011 342 2786 10.1136/bmj.d2786 21596740
16. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, O'Brien JP, Physiotherapy 1980 66 8 271 273 6450426 (Pubitemid 11234479)
17. The Oswestry Disability Index. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB, Spine 2000 25 22 2940 2952 discussion 2952 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017 11074683
18. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Norwegian versions of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Oswestry Disability Index. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vollestad NK, J Rehabil Med 2003 35 5 241 247 10.1080/16501970306094 14582557 (Pubitemid 37265112)
19. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD, Med Care 1992 30 6 473 483 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 1593914
20. The time trade-off method: results from a general population study. Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A, Health Econ 1996 5 2 141 154 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199603)5:2<141::AID-HEC189>3.0.CO;2-N 8733106 (Pubitemid 126484860)
21. EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group, Health Policy 1990 16 3 199 208 10109801
22. Clinically important outcomes in low back pain. Ostelo RW, de Vet HC, Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005 19 4 593 607 10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.003 15949778 (Pubitemid 40790489)
23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, De Vet HC, COSMIN checklist manual 2012
24. The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, BMC Med Res Methodol 2010 10 22 10.1186/1471-2288-10-22 20298572
25. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. van der Roer N, Ostelo RW, Bekkering GE, van Tulder MW, de Vet HC, Spine 2006 31 5 578 582 10.1097/01.brs.0000201293.57439.47 16508555
26. Linking clinical relevance and statistical significance in evaluating intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Wyrwich KW, Nienaber NA, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD, Med Care 1999 37 5 469 478 10.1097/00005650- 199905000-00006 10335749
27. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD, J Clin Epidemiol 1999 52 9 861 873 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00071-2 10529027 (Pubitemid 29385600)
28. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR, J Clin Epidemiol 2003 56 5 395 407 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1 12812812 (Pubitemid 36694091)
29. Measurement error. Bland JM, Altman DG, BMJ 1996 313 7059 744 8819450
30. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM, J Clin Epidemiol 2006 59 10 1033 1039 10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2005.10.015 16980142 (Pubitemid 44376776)
31. Understanding the relevance of measured change through studies of responsiveness. Beaton DE, Spine 2000 25 24 3192 3199 10.1097/00007632- 200012150-00015 11124736 (Pubitemid 32042952)
32. The clinical importance of changes in outcome scores after treatment for chronic low back pain. Hagg O, Fritzell P, Nordwall A, Eur Spine J 2003 12 1 12 20 12592542 (Pubitemid 36286825)
33. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 63 7 737 745 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 20494804
34. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidimensionality using item fit statistics and principal component analysis of residuals. Smith EV Jr, J Appl Meas 2002 3 2 205 231 12011501
35. Checking Dimensionality in Item Response Models With Principal Component Analysis on Standardized Residuals. Chou Y-T, Wang W-C, Educ Psychol Meas 2010 70 5 717 731 10.1177/0013164410379322
36. The Oswestry Disability Index. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB, 22, Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000 25 2940 2952 discussion 2952 10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
37. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Zweig MH, Campbell G, Clin Chem 1993 39 4 561 577 8472349 (Pubitemid 23118304)
38. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. Deyo RA, Centor RM, J Chronic Dis 1986 39 11 897 906 10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-X 2947907 (Pubitemid 17229987)
39. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY, Spine J 2008 8 6 968 974 10.1016/j.spinee. 2007.11.006 18201937
40. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Tennant A, Conaghan PG, Arthritis Rheum 2007 57 8 1358 1362 10.1002/art.23108 18050173 (Pubitemid 350308830)
41. An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: an example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Pallant JF, Tennant A, Br J Clin Psychol 2007 46 Pt 1 1 18 17472198 (Pubitemid 46332274)
42. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Bland JM, Altman DG, Stat Methods Med Res 1999 8 2 135 160 10.1191/096228099673819272 10501650 (Pubitemid 29425900)
43. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. van Stel HF, Buskens E, Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006 4 20 10.1186/1477-7525-4-20 16563170 (Pubitemid 43880423)
44. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Walters SJ, Brazier JE, Qual Life Res 2005 14 6 1523 1532 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 16110932 (Pubitemid 40848233)
45. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Brazier J, Deverill M, Health Econ 1999 8 1 41 51 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199902)8:1<41::AID-HEC395>3.0. CO;2-# 10082142 (Pubitemid 29057354)
46. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, Boers M, Bouter LM, Qual Life Res 2007 16 1 131 142 10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9 17033901 (Pubitemid 46046743)
47. A critical look at transition ratings. Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE, J Clin Epidemiol 2002 55 9 900 908 10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00435-3 12393078 (Pubitemid 35246561)
48. Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 63 5 524 534 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.010 19926446
49. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, Guyatt GH, J Clin Epidemiol 2010 63 1 28 36 10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2009.01.024 19800198
50. Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K, Qual Life Res 2002 11 3 207 221 10.1023/A:1015276414526 12074259 (Pubitemid 34553502)
51. Reassessing quality-of-life instruments in the evaluation of new drugs. Guyatt GH, Jaeschke RJ, Pharmaco Economics 1997 12 6 621 626 10.2165/00019053-199712060-00002 (Pubitemid 27520875)