Cargando…

Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain

BACKGROUND: Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeuti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Obradovic, Marko, Lal, Arun, Liedgens, Hiltrud
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23815777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110
_version_ 1782278125294452736
author Obradovic, Marko
Lal, Arun
Liedgens, Hiltrud
author_facet Obradovic, Marko
Lal, Arun
Liedgens, Hiltrud
author_sort Obradovic, Marko
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments – EQ-5D and SF-6D – for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland–Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness. RESULTS: The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland–Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire – Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) – both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3722016
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37220162013-07-25 Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain Obradovic, Marko Lal, Arun Liedgens, Hiltrud Health Qual Life Outcomes Review BACKGROUND: Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments – EQ-5D and SF-6D – for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland–Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness. RESULTS: The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland–Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire – Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) – both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients. BioMed Central 2013-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3722016/ /pubmed/23815777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110 Text en Copyright © 2013 Obradovic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Obradovic, Marko
Lal, Arun
Liedgens, Hiltrud
Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title_full Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title_fullStr Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title_full_unstemmed Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title_short Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain
title_sort validity and responsiveness of euroqol-5 dimension (eq-5d) versus short form-6 dimension (sf-6d) questionnaire in chronic pain
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3722016/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23815777
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-110
work_keys_str_mv AT obradovicmarko validityandresponsivenessofeuroqol5dimensioneq5dversusshortform6dimensionsf6dquestionnaireinchronicpain
AT lalarun validityandresponsivenessofeuroqol5dimensioneq5dversusshortform6dimensionsf6dquestionnaireinchronicpain
AT liedgenshiltrud validityandresponsivenessofeuroqol5dimensioneq5dversusshortform6dimensionsf6dquestionnaireinchronicpain