Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Summarizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) on a quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scale is an essential component to any economic evaluation comparing alternative medical treatments. While multiple studies have compared PRO items and instruments based on their psychometric properties, no study has compared the preference-based summary of the EQ-5D-3L and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) instruments. As part of this comparison, a major aim of this manuscript is to transform PROMIS-29 utility values to an EQ-5D-3L scale.
A nationally representative survey of 2623 US adults completed the 29-item PROMIS health profile instrument (PROMIS-29) and the 3-level version of the EQ-5D instrument (EQ-5D-3L). Their responses were summarized on a health utility scale using published estimates. Using regression analysis, PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-3L utility weights were compared with each other as well as with self-reported general health.
PROMIS-29 utility weights were much lower than the EQ-5D-3L weights. However, a correlation coefficient of 0.769 between the utility values of the two instruments suggests that the main discordance is simply a difference in scale between the measures. It is also possible to map PROMIS-29 utility weights onto an EQ-5D-3L scale. EQ-5D-3L losses equal .1784 × (PROMIS-29 Losses).7286.
The published estimates of the PROMIS-29 produce lower utility values than many other health instruments. Mapping the PROMIS-29 estimates to an EQ-5D-3L scale alleviates this issue and allows for a more straightforward comparison between the PROMIS-29 and other common health instruments.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Lipscomb, J., et al. (2009). Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value in Health, 12, S18-S26. CrossRef
Revicki, D. A., & Lenderking, W. R. (2012). Methods and issues associated with the use of quality-adjusted life-years. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 12(1), 105–114. CrossRef
Nord, E., Daniels, N., & Kamlet, M. (2009). QALYs: Some challenges. Value in Health, 12, S10–S15. CrossRef
EuroQol. (2015). About EQ-5D. Retrieved April 22, 2015, from http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d.html.
Chai, T., & Draxler, R. R. (2014). Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)?—Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geoscientific Model Development, 7(3), 1247–1250. CrossRef
StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. 2013, StataCorp LP: College Station, TX.
NICE, Positition Statement on the use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set. 2017, National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence.
- Comparing and transforming PROMIS utility values to the EQ-5D
John D. Hartman
Benjamin M. Craig
- Springer International Publishing