A comparison of the measurement properties and estimation of minimal important differences of the EQ-5D and SF-6D utility measures in patients with systemic sclerosis

Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology

Volumn 31, Issue SUPPL.76, 2013, Pages

  Kwakkenbos, Linda ^a,b,c,d   Fransen, Jaap ^d   Vonk, Madelon C ^d   Becker, Eni S ^e   Jeurissen, Maurice ^a   van den Hoogen, Frank H J ^a   van den Ende, Cornelia H M ^a  

^a Sint Maartenskliniek ^*  (Netherlands)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Economics; Outcome assessment (health care); Psychometrics; Quality of life; scleroderma; Systemic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLAND ALTMAN PLOT; CALCULATION; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DISABILITY INDEX; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; EUROQOL 5D; FEMALE; HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LINS CONCORDANCE COEFFICIENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SCLERODERMA HEALTH ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE; SHORT FORM 6D; SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS; ULITITY MEASURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; ECONOMICS; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUALITY OF LIFE; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SCLERODERMA, SYSTEMIC;

EID: 84883770138     PISSN: 0392856X     EISSN: 1593098X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. BRAUER CA, ROSEN AB, GREENBERG D, NEUMANN PJ: Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 2006; 9: 213-8.
2. BLOOM BS: Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making. Am J Manag Care 2004; 10: 329-35.
3. BROOKS R: EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53-72.
4. RABIN R, de CHARRO F: EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337-43.
5. 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.
6. WARE JE, Jr., SHERBOURNE CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473-83.
7. HARRISON MJ, DAVIES LM, BANSBACK NJ, INGRAM M, ANIS AH, SYMMONS DP: The validity and responsiveness of generic utility measures in rheumatoid arthritis: a review. J Rheumatol 2008; 35: 592-602.
8. MARRA CA, RASHIDI AA, GUH D et al.: Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients?. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 1333-44.
9. SALAFFI F, CAROTTI M, CIAPETTI A, GASPARINI S, GRASSI W: A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference- based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011; 29: 661-71.
10. WHITEHURST DG, BRYAN S, LEWIS M: Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Making 2011; 31:E34-44.
11. 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.
12. McDONOUGH CM, TOSTESON AN: Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decisionmaking. Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25: 93- 106.
13. KATSUMOTO TR, WHITFIELD ML, CONNOLLY MK: The pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis. Annu Rev Pathol 2011; 28: 509-37.
14. LeROY EC, BLACK C, FLEISCHMAJER R, et al.: Scleroderma (systemic sclerosis): classification, subsets, and pathogenesis. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 202-5.
15. HUDSON M, THOMBS BD, STEELE R, PANOPALIS P, NEWTON E, BARON M, Canadian Scleroderma Research Group: Health-related quality of life in systemic sclerosis: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 1112-20.
16. THOMBS BD, JEWETT LR, ASSASSI S, et al.: New directions for patient-centred care in scleroderma: the Scleroderma Patient-centred Intervention Network (SPIN). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012; 30: S23-9.
17. TAN A, DENTON CP, MIKHAILIDIS DP, SEIFALIAN AM: Recent advances in the diagnosis and treatment of interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis (scleroderma): a review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2011; 29: S66-74.
18. BEYER C, DISTLER O, DISTLER JH: Innovative antifibrotic therapies in systemic sclerosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2012; 24: 274-80.
19. JAESCHKE R, SINGER J, GUYATT GH: Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 407-15.
20. REVICKI DA, CELLA D, HAYS RD, SLOAN JA, LENDERKING WR, AARONSON NK: Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 27: 4-70.
21. KHANNA D, FURST DE, WONG WK, et al.: Reliability, validity, and minimally important differences of the SF-6D in systemic sclerosis. Qual Life Res 2007; 16: 1083-92.
22. KWAKKENBOS L, van LANKVELD WG, VONK MC, BECKER ES, van den HOOGEN FH, van den ENDE CH: Disease-related and psychosocial factors associated with depressive symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis, including fear of progression and appearance self-esteem. J Psychosom Res 2012; 72: 199-204.
23. Subcommittee for scleroderma criteria of the American Rheumatism Ass ociation Diagnostics a Therapeutic Criteria Committee: Preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23: 581-90.
24. CLEMENTS P, LACHENBRUCH P, SIEBOLD J, et al.: Inter and intraobserver variability of total skin thickness score (modified Rodnan TSS) in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1281-5.
25. STEEN VD, MEDSGER TA: The value of the health assessment questionnaire and special patient-generated scales to demonstrate change in systemic sclerosis patients over time. Arthritis Rheum 1997; 40: 1984-91.
26. FRIES JF, SPITZ P, KRAINES RG, HOLMAN HR: Measurement of patient outcomes in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980; 23: 137-45.
27. BASSEL M, HUDSON M, TAILLEFER SS, SCHIEIR O, BARON M, THOMBS BD: Frequency and impact of symptoms experienced by patients with systemic sclerosis: results from a Canadian National Survey. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2011; 50: 762-7.
28. MOKKINK LB, TERWEE CB, PATRICK DL, et al.: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 539-49.
29. ANGST F: The new COSMIN guidelines confront traditional concepts of responsiveness. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11: 152.
30. ROYSTON P: Multiple imputation of missing values: update of ice. Stata J 2005; 5: 527- 36.
31. MARSHALL A, ALTMAN DG, HOLDER RL, ROYSTON P: Combining estimates of interest in prognostic modelling studies after multiple imputation: current practice and guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 57.
32. LIN LI: A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989; 45: 255-68.
33. BLAND JM, ALTMAN DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 8: 307-10.
34. FRANZBLAU A: A primer of statistics for non-statisticians. New York: Brace & World, 1985.
35. TERWEE CB, BOT SDM, de BOER MR, et al.: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60: 34-42.
36. WELLS GA, TUGWELL P, KRAAG GR, BAKER PR, GROH J, REDELMEIER DA: Minimum important difference between patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The patient's perspective. J Rheumatol 1993; 20: 557-60.
37. KHANNA D, FURST DE, HAYS, et al.: Minimally important difference in diffuse systemic sclerosis - results from the D-penicillamine study. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 1325-9.
38. COHEN J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum; 1988
39. HUSTED JA, COOK RJ, FAREWELL VT, GLADMAN DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 459-68.
40. OSOBA D, BEZJAK A, BRUNDAGE M, et al.: Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41: 280-7.
41. GUYATT GH, OSOBA D, WU AW, WYRWICH KW, NORMAN, GR: Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc 2002; 77: 371-83.
42. HAYS RD, WOOLLEY JM: The concept of clinically meaningful difference in healthrelated quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it?. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 18: 419-23.
43. 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. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 260-9.
44. TERWEE CB, ROORDA LD, KNOL DL, De BOER MR, De VET HCW: Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 62-7.
45. Al-DHAHER FF, POPE JE, OUIMET JM: Determinants of morbidity and mortality of systemic sclerosis in Canada. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2010; 39: 269-77.