Estimating EQ-5D values from the Neck Disability Index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 394-399

  Carreon, Leah Y ^a   Bratcher, Kelly R ^a   Das, Nandita ^a   Nienhuis, Jacob B ^a   Glassman, Steven D ^a  

^a NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical; Cost utility analysis; EQ 5D; Neck Disability Index; Outcome measurement; Utilities

Indexed keywords

ARM PAIN; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EQ 5D; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NECK PAIN; NUMERIC RATING SCALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PAIN INTENSITY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SPINE DISEASE; ARM; CERVICAL; CERVICAL SPINE; COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS; DISABILITY; EQ-5D; EQ-5D-3L = EQ-5D 3 LEVEL; EQ-5D-5L = EQ-5D 5 LEVEL; MIDDLE AGED; NDI = NECK DISABILITY INDEX; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; QALY = QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RMSE = ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR; UTILITIES; VAS = VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

CERVICAL; COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS; EQ-5D; EQ-5D-3L = EQ-5D 3 LEVEL; EQ-5D-5L = EQ-5D 5 LEVEL; NDI = NECK DISABILITY INDEX; NECK DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME MEASUREMENT; QALY = QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RMSE = ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR; UTILITIES; VAS = VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ARM; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NECK PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 84908124434     PISSN: 15475654     EISSN: 15475646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3171/2014.5.SPINE13570     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Calculating the U.S. population-based EQ-5D™ Index Score. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2005 (http://www.ahrq.gov/rice/EQ5Dscore.htm) [Accessed May 7, 2014]
2. Badia X, Schiaffino A, Alonso J, Herdman M: Using the EuroQoI 5-D in the Catalan general population: feasibility and construct validity. Qual Life Res 7: 311-322, 1998
3. Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Whynes DK, et al: A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged ? 45 years. Health Econ 17: 815-832, 2008
4. Bloom BS: Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making. Am J Manag Care 10: 329-335, 2004
5. Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C: A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 4: 174-184, 1999
6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference- based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 21: 271-292, 2002
7. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 13: 873-884, 2004
8. Carreon LY, Anderson PA, McDonough CM, Djurasovic M, Glassman SD: Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the neck disability index and numeric rating scales for neck and arm pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36: 490-494, 2011
9. Chen F, Curran PJ, Bollen KA, Kirby J, Paxton P: An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res 36: 462-494, 2008
10. Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME: Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preferencebased instruments. Med Care 41: 791-801, 2003
11. Devlin N, Hansen P, Herbison P: Variations in self-reported health status: results from a New Zealand survey. N Z Med J 113: 517-520, 2000
12. Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S: Survey of pharmacoeconomic assessment activity in eleven countries. OECD Health Working Papers, No. 4 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/678644556018) [Accessed May 7, 2014]
13. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'Brien BJ, Stoddart GL: Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes, ed 3. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005
14. EuroQol Group: EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16: 199-208, 1990
15. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, et al: Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 40: 113-128, 2002
16. Franzblau AN: A Primer of Statistics for Non-Statisticians. New York: Harcourt, 1958
17. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC: Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996
18. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al: Development and preliminary testing of the new fivelevel version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20: 1727-1736, 2011
19. Johnson JA, Pickard AS: Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF- 12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Med Care 38: 115-121, 2000
20. Kaplan RM: Health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease. J Consult Clin Psychol 56: 382-392, 1988
21. Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A: Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ 316: 736-741, 1998
22. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ: Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med Care 43: 1078-1086, 2005
23. McCaffery M, Beebe A: Pain: Clinical Manual for Nursing Practice. Baltimore: Mosby Co, 1989
24. 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 14: 1321-1332, 2005
25. McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson AN, Jette AM, Grove MR, Weinstein JN: A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation. Med Decis Making 31: 270-280, 2011
26. 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 47: 889-894, 2009
27. 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 12: 606-612, 2009
28. Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V: A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care 43: 736-749, 2005
29. Tosteson AN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Skinner JS, Herkowitz H, Albert T, et al: Surgical treatment of spinal stenosis with and without degenerative spondylolisthesis: cost-effectiveness after 2 years. Ann Intern Med 149: 845-853, 2008
30. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Andersson GB, Berven S, et al: The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33: 2108-2115, 2008
31. Vernon H: The Neck Disability Index: state-of-the-art, 1991- 2008. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 31: 491-502, 2008
32. Vernon H, Mior S: The Neck Disability Index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 14: 409-415, 1991
33. Wang H, Kindig DA, Mullahy J: Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: results from a EuroQol study in Beijing, China. Qual Life Res 14: 119-132, 2005
34. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB: Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 276: 1253-1258, 1996
35. 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 14: 531-538, 2011
36. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S, Lewis M: Systematic review and empirical comparison of contemporaneous EQ-5D and SF-6D group mean scores. Med Decis Making 31: E34-E44, 2011