Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients

Quality of Life Research

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 1555-1563

  Golicki, Dominik ^a   Niewada, Maciej ^a   Karlińska, Anna ^b   Buczek, Julia ^b   Kobayashi, Adam ^b   Janssen, M F ^c   Pickard, A Simon ^d  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

^b INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROLOGY   (Poland)

^c ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

EQ 5D 3L; EQ 5D 5L; Health related quality of life; Patient reported outcomes; Psychometrics; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORTHOSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; VERY ELDERLY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORTHOTIC DEVICES; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; STROKE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 84930484178     PISSN: 09629343     EISSN: 15732649     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy,37(1), 53–72.
2. Oemar, M., Oppe, M. (2013). EQ-5D-3L User guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. EuroQol Group. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2013_v5.0_October_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2014.
3. Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., Walters, M. R., & Lees, K. R. (2009). Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. International Journal of Stroke,4(3), 200–205. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00271.x.
4. Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research,20(10), 1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
5. Oemar, M., Janssen, B. (2013). EQ-5D-5L User guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQol Group. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/UserGuide_EQ-5D-5L_v2.0_October_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2014.
6. Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Quality of Life Research,22(7), 1717–1727. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
7. Hinz, A., Kohlmann, T., Stobel-Richter, Y., Zenger, M., & Brahler, E. (2014). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research,23(2), 443–447. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2.
8. Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research,22(7), 1707–1716. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.
9. Jia, Y. X., Cui, F. Q., Li, L., Zhang, D. L., Zhang, G. M., Wang, F. Z., et al. (2014). Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Quality of Life Research,. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.
10. Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research,21(6), 1065–1073. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.
11. Lee, C. F., Luo, N., Ng, R., Wong, N. S., Yap, Y. S., Lo, S. K., et al. (2013). Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Quality of Life Research,22(7), 1745–1751. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0291-7.
12. Glossary. (2000). Health outcomes methodology. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl II): II7–II13.
13. van Swieten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. J., & van Gijn, J. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke,19(5), 604–607.
14. Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal,14, 61–65.
15. Dromerick, A. W., Edwards, D. F., & Diringer, M. N. (2003). Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development,40(1), 1–8.
16. Quinn, T. J., Langhorne, P., & Stott, D. J. (2011). Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke,42(4), 1146–1151. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.598540.
17. Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research,21(7), 1205–1216. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0024-3.
18. Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Niewada, M., Wrona, W., & Busschbach, J. J. (2010). Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: First TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health,13(2), 289–297. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00596.x.
19. van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., Feng, Y. S., Kohlmann, T., Busschbach, J., Golicki, D., et al. (2012). Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: Mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health,15(5), 708–715. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
20. Golicki, D., Niewada, M., van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., & Pickard, A. S. (2014). Interim eq-5d-5l value set for Poland: First crosswalk value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value in Health Regional Issues,4C, 19–23.
21. Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care,38(9 Suppl), i84–i90.
22. Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,61(2), 102–109.
23. Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., & Symonds, T. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research,14(2), 285–295.
24. Huybrechts, K. F., & Caro, J. J. (2007). The Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale as prognostic tools for long-term outcomes after stroke: A qualitative review of the literature. Current Medical Research and Opinion,23(7), 1627–1636. doi:10.1185/030079907x210444.
25. Hsieh, Y. W., Wang, C. H., Wu, S. C., Chen, P. C., Sheu, C. F., & Hsieh, C. L. (2007). Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabilation and Neural Repair,21(3), 233–238. doi:10.1177/1545968306294729.
26. Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., & Jaeschke, R. (1996). Chapter 6: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 49–56). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
27. Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials,12(4 Suppl), 142s–158s.
28. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: L.E. Associates.
29. Beaton, D. E., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Bombardier, C. (1997). Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,50(1), 79–93.
30. Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases,39(11), 897–906.
31. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology,143(1), 29–36. doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747.
32. DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics,44(3), 837–845.
33. Devlin, N. J., & Krabbe, P. F. (2013). The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. The European Journal of Health Economics,14(Suppl 1), S1–S3. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.
34. Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health,17(4), 445–453. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.
35. Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research,14(1), 207–219.
36. Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., Walters, M. R., & Lees, K. R. (2009). Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: A systematic review. Stroke,40(10), 3393–3395. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.109.557256.
37. Quinn, T. J., Lees, K. R., Hardemark, H. G., Dawson, J., & Walters, M. R. (2007). Initial experience of a digital training resource for modified Rankin scale assessment in clinical trials. Stroke,38(8), 2257–2261. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.106.480723.
38. Wilson, J. T., Hareendran, A., Grant, M., Baird, T., Schulz, U. G., Muir, K. W., et al. (2002). Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: Use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke,33(9), 2243–2246.
39. Ali, M., Fulton, R., Quinn, T., & Brady, M. (2013). How well do standard stroke outcome measures reflect quality of life? A retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Stroke,44(11), 3161–3165. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.001126.
40. Swan, J. S., Hur, C., Lee, P., Motazedi, T., & Donelan, K. (2013). Responsiveness of the testing morbidities index in colonoscopy. Value Health,16(6), 1046–1053. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.07.008.