Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Seven Countries

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 675-697

  Janssen, Mathieu F ^a   Bonsel, Gouke J ^a,b   Luo, Nan ^c  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^c NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHINA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; ENGLAND; EQ 5D 3L; EQ 5D 5L; FACE VALIDITY; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMAN; JAPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE ASSESSMENT; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SOUTH KOREA; SPAIN; UNITED KINGDOM; YOUNG ADULT; FACTUAL DATABASE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REFERENCE VALUE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ADULT; AGED; CANADA; CHINA; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; JAPAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NETHERLANDS; REFERENCE VALUES; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPAIN; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED KINGDOM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85042348824     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: 11792027     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
2. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–108.
3. Brooks R. The EuroQol Group after 25 years. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
4. Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–37.
5. Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, Devlin N, et al. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):875–86.
6. Ravens-Sieberer U, Wille N, Badia X, Bonsel G, Burstrom K, Cavrini G, et al. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the EQ-5D-Y: results from a multinational study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(6):887–97.
7. Krabbe PF, Stouthard ME, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The effect of adding a cognitive dimension to the EuroQol multiattribute health-status classification system. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(4):293–301.
8. Swinburn P, Lloyd A, Boye KS, Edson-Heredia E, Bowman L, Janssen B. Development of a disease-specific version of the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients suffering from psoriasis: lessons learned from a feasibility study in the UK. Value Health. 2013;16(8):1156–62.
9. Yang Y, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Effect of adding a sleep dimension to the EQ- 5D descriptive system: a “bolt-on” experiment. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):42–53.
10. Yang Y, Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Young T, Longworth L. An exploratory study to test the impact on three “bolt-on” items to the EQ-5D. Value Health. 2015;18(1):52–60.
11. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.
12. EQ-5D. http://www.euroqol.org. Accessed 24 Oct 2017.
13. Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, Krabbe PF, de Charro F. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–53.
14. Ramos-Goñi JM, Oppe M, Slaap B, Busschbach JJ, Stolk E. Quality control process for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2017;20(3):466–73.
15. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27.
16. Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, Zhang DL, Zhang GM, Wang FZ, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–63.
17. Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74.
18. Conner-Spady BL, Marshall DA, Bohm E, Dunbar MJ, Loucks L, Al KA, et al. Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1775–84.
19. Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlinska A, Buczek J, Kobayashi A, Janssen MF, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–63.
20. Greene ME, Rader KA, Garellick G, Malchau H, Freiberg AA, Rolfson O. The EQ-5D-5L improves on the EQ-5D-3L for health-related quality-of-life assessment in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(11):3383–90.
21. Pan CW, Sun HP, Wang X, Ma Q, Xu Y, Luo N, Wang P. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2014;24(7):1767–74.
22. Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:14.
23. Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):2045–53.
24. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health. 2012;15(5):708–15.
25. Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105.
26. Bansback N, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Anis A. Canadian valuation of EQ-5D health states: preliminary value set and considerations for future valuation studies. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e31115.
27. Luo N, Liu G, Li M, Guan H, Jin X, Rand-Hendriksen K. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–9.
28. Liu GG, Wu H, Li M, Gao C, Luo N. Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value Health. 2014;17(5):597–604.
29. Devlin N, Shah K, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2017. 10.1002/hec.3564 (Epub 2017 Aug 22).
30. Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, Igarashi A, Fukuda T, Saito S, Shimozuma K. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–54.
31. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;11(4):341–53.
32. Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SM, de Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–52.
33. Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, Busschbach JJ. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15(10):1121–32.
34. Kim SH, Ahn J, Ock M, Shin S, Park J, Luo N, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1845–52.
35. 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(8):1187–93.
36. Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, Ramallo-Fariña Y, Pinto-Prades JL, Luo L, et al. Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health (In press).
37. Badia X, Roset R, Herdman M, Kind P. A comparison of United Kingdom and Spanish general population time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):7–16.
38. Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, Doble B, Pullenayegum E. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):8–20.
39. Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, Ramos-Goñi JM, Luo N. EuroQol protocols for time trade-off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
40. Parkin D, Devlin N, Feng Y. What determines the shape of an EQ-5D index distribution? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(8):941–51.
41. Janssen MF, Birnie E, Bonsel GJ. Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(5):895–904.
42. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Genovese BJ, et al. Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:557–69.
43. Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, et al. Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Med Care. 2009;47:53–60.
44. Murray CJL, Özaltin E, Tandon A, Salomon JA, Sadana R, Chatterji SA. Empirical evaluation of the anchoring vignette approach in health surveys. In: Murray CJL, Evans DB, editors. Health system performance assessment: debates, methods and empiricism. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. p. 369–99.
45. Lindeboom M, van Doorslaer E. Cut-point shift and index shift in self-reported health. J Health Econ. 2004;23(6):1083–99.
46. Rice N, Robone S, Smith P. Analysis of the validity of the vignette approach to correct for heterogeneity in reporting health system responsiveness. Eur J Health Econ. 2011;12(2):141–62.
47. Hirve S, Gómez-Olivé X, Oti S, Debpuur C, Juvekar S, Tollman S, et al. Use of anchoring vignettes to evaluate health reporting behavior amongst adults aged 50 years and above in Africa and Asia–testing assumptions. Glob Health Action. 2013;6(1):21064.
48. Valentine N, Verdes-Tennant E, Bonsel G. Health systems’ responsiveness and reporting behaviour: multilevel analysis of the influence of individual-level factors in 64 countries. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:152–60.
49. Scalone L, Ciampichini R, Fagiuoli S, Gardini I, Fusco F, Gaeta L, et al. Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1707–16.
50. Olsen JA, Lamu AN, Cairns J. In search of a common currency: a comparison of seven EQ-5D-5L value sets. Health Econ. 2017. 10.1002/hec.3606 (Epub 2017 Oct 24).
51. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2.
52. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemol. 2010;63:737–45.
53. Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, Pudney S, Gomes M, Sadique Z, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost-effectiveness. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56.
54. Huxley JS. Problems of relative growth. London: Methuen and Company Limited; 1932.
55. Gaddum JH. Lognormal distributions. Nature. 1945;156:463–6.
56. Fairclough DL. Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. 2nd ed. New York: CRC Press; 2010.
57. Hilden J. The area under the ROC curve and its competitors. Med Decis Making. 1991;11(2):95–101.
58. Hilden J. Prevalence-free utility-respecting summary indices of diagnostic power do not exist. Stat Med. 2000;19(4):431–40.
59. Oppe M, Devlin N, Black N. Comparison of the underlying constructs of EQ-5D and Oxford Hip Score: implications for mapping. Value Health. 2011;14:884–91.