Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Kim, Sang Kyu ^a   Kim, Seon Ha ^b   Jo, Min Woo ^c   Lee, Sang il ^c  

^a Dongguk University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Dankook University   (South Korea)

^c University of Ulsan College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; Health related quality of life; Minimally important difference; SF 6D; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BARTHEL INDEX; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; EQ5D; FEMALE; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANKIN SCALE; SHORT FORM 36; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF REPORT; STROKE;

AGED; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF REPORT; STROKE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84928748747     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Statistics Korea. The cause of death statistics in 2010. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parentId=D. Accessed 1 Jan 2012.
2. Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Invest. 1993;11:327-36.
3. Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD. A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:155-85.
4. Salter KL, Moses MB, Foley NC, Teasell RW. Health-related quality of life after stroke: what are we measuring? Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31:111-7.
5. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:172-91.
6. Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):593-7.
7. Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.
8. Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, Yount SE, Peterman AH, Neuberg DS, et al. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:898-910.
9. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005;2(1):63-7.
10. Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38:II84-90.
11. Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998;36:491-502.
12. Lydick E, Epstein RS. Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:221-6.
13. Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28-36.
14. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.
15. EuroQol. a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
16. Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:235-41.
17. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish M. Concepts, Measures, and application. In: User's Manual for the SF-36v2® Health Survey. Lincoln RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2007. p. 13-24.
18. 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.
19. Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207-19.
20. Kvam AK, Fayers PM, Wisloff F. Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2011;87:330-7.
21. Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12:1187-93.
22. 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.
23. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999;30:1538-41.
24. Kim SY, Won CW, Rho YG. The Validity and Reliability of Korean Version of Bathel ADL Index. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2004;25:534-41.
25. Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61-3.
26. Kim SH, Hwang JS, Kim TW, Hong YS, Jo MW. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D for cancer patients in Korea. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(12):3155-60.
27. Lee WJ, Song KH, Noh JH, Choi YJ, Jo MW. Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(3):255-60.
28. Kim MH, Cho YS, Uhm WS, Kim S, Bae SC. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1401-6.
29. Han CW, Lee EJ, Iwaya T, Kataoka H, Kohzuki M. Development of the Korean version of Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey: health related QOL of healthy elderly people and elderly patients in Korea. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2004;203:189-94.
30. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178-89.
31. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542-7.
32. Cohen J. The t-test for means. In: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. p. 19-74.
33. D'Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:2331-6.
34. Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, Feeny D, Ganiats TG, Palta M, et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:497-506.
35. Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, Liu H, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):273-86.
36. Hartigan I, O'Mahony D. The Barthel Index: comparing inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors in an older adult rehabilitation unit. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(1):e1-7.