Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

05-04-2021

Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China

Auteurs: Jie Jiang, Yanming Hong, Tiantian Zhang, Zhihao Yang, Tengfei Lin, Zhuoru Liang, Peiyao Lu, Lishun Liu, Binyan Wang, Yongmei Xu, Nan Luo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement properties of two versions of EQ-5D (i.e.EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in hypertensive patients in rural China.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was carried out in hypertensive patients in rural China. We compared the ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity, known-groups validity, and relative efficiency of the 3L and 5L and examined their agreement.

Results

A total of 11,412 patients were enrolled in our study. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.84 (SD 0.21) according to the 5L and 0.86 (SD 0.17) according to the 3L. A good agreement was observed between the 3L and 5L. The overall ceiling effect decreased from 46.4% (3L) to 29.4% (5L). The Shannon index, H′ improved in all dimensions when used 5L. When used 3L, the median responses of all groups were consistent with 5L across the three dimensions of ‘mobility’, ‘self-care’, ‘usual activities’, while the median responses were inconsistent for the ‘pain/discomfort’ and ‘anxiety/depression’ dimensions. The 3L performed better in eight comorbidities in terms of F-statistics and six comorbidities in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). The 5L performed better both in terms of the F-statistics and AUROCs in age, education level, anti-hypertensive medication use.

Conclusion

Taking all comparisons into account, we recommend the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients with hypertension in rural China.

vorige artikel Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes

volgende artikel Psychometric properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) pediatric item bank peer relationships in the Dutch general population

Christell, H., Birch, S., Horner, K., Lindh, C., & Rohlin, M. (2014). Economic evaluation of diagnostic methods used in dentistry A systematic review. Journal of Dentistry, 42(11), 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.07.018. CrossRefPubMed

Earnshaw, J., & Lewis, G. (2008). NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics, 26(9), 725–727. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00002. CrossRefPubMed

Cleemput, I., Neyt, M., Van de Sande, S., & Thiry, N. (2012). Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses (2nd ed.). Brussels: KCE = Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg = Centre Fédéral d'Expertise des Soins de Santé = Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Retrieved January, 22 2017.

Rencz, F., Gulacsi, L., Drummond, M., Golicki, D., Prevolnik Rupel, V., Simon, J., et al. (2016). EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Quality of Life Research, 25(11), 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6. CrossRefPubMed

Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y. CrossRefPubMed

Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., et al. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 316(10), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195. CrossRefPubMed

Massetti, M., Aballea, S., Videau, Y., Remuzat, C., Roiz, J., & Toumi, M. (2015). A comparison of HAS and NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments. Journal of Market Access and Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.24966. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72. CrossRef

EuroQoL. (1990). EuroQoL—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208. CrossRef

10.

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 in Health, 15(5), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866. CrossRefPubMed

12.

Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013. CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00609-1. CrossRefPubMed

14.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1. CrossRefPubMed

15.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. CrossRefPubMed

16.

Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2013). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 885–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0200-0. CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQoL study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6. CrossRefPubMed

18.

Li, L., Liu, C., Cai, X., Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., et al. (2019). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5L in family caregivers of leukemia patients. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5721-2. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Xia, J., Wu, N. W., Ma, T. P., Yu, C., & Li, N. X. (2020). Evaluation of reliability and validity of EQ-5D-5L based on residents in southwest China. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 51(5), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.12182/20200960504. CrossRefPubMed

20.

Fang, H., Farooq, U., Wang, D., Yu, F., Younus, M. I., & Guo, X. (2016). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-3L for Kashin-Beck disease in China. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1924. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3613-3. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60078-9. CrossRefPubMed

22.

Cheung, P. W. H., Wong, C. K. H., Samartzis, D., Luk, K. D. K., Lam, C. L. K., Cheung, K. M. C., et al. (2016). Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, 11, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0083-x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Wang, H. M., Patrick, D. L., Edwards, T. C., Skalicky, A. M., Zeng, H. Y., & Gu, W. W. (2012). Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9915-6. CrossRefPubMed

24.

Tamási, B., Brodszky, V., Péntek, M., Gulácsi, L., Hajdu, K., Sárdy, M., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. British Journal of Dermatology, 180(4), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16883. CrossRef

25.

Qi, S. F., Zhang, B., Wang, H. J., Yan, J., Mi, Y. J., Liu, D. W., et al. (2016). Prevalence of hypertension subtypes in 2011 and the trends from 1991 to 2011 among Chinese adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(5), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206492. CrossRefPubMed

26.

Kearney, P. M., Whelton, M., Reynolds, K., Muntner, P., Whelton, P. K., & He, J. (2005). Global burden of hypertension: Analysis of worldwide data. Lancet, 365(9455), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1. CrossRefPubMed

27.

Ramahi, T. M. (2010). Cardiovascular disease in the Asia Middle East region: Global trends and local implications. Asia–Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22(3 Suppl), 83S-89S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539510373034. CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wu, Y., Tang, W., Ding, X., Mao, D., Chen, L., & Jiao, Y. (2019). Analysis of disease burden for hypertension and hypertensive heart or kidney complications in residents of Chongqing from 2012 to 2018. Chinese Journal of Prevention and Control of Chronic Diseases, 27(11), 818–821+826.

29.

National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases. (2015). Report on Cardiovascular Disease in China 2014. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, China.

30.

Lu, J., Lu, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Linderman, G. C., Wu, C., et al. (2017). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from 1·7 million adults in a population-based screening study (China PEACE Million Persons Project). Lancet, 390(10112), 2549–2558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32478-9. CrossRefPubMed

31.

Li, D., Lv, J., Liu, F., Liu, P., Yang, X., Feng, Y., et al. (2015). Hypertension burden and control in mainland China: Analysis of nationwide data 2003–2012. International Journal of Cardiology, 184, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.045. CrossRefPubMed

32.

Su, M., Zhang, Q., Bai, X., Wu, C., Li, Y., Mossialos, E., et al. (2017). Availability, cost, and prescription patterns of antihypertensive medications in primary health care in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 390(10112), 2559–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32476-5. CrossRefPubMed

33.

Wang, J. G. (2015). Chinese hypertension guidelines. Pulse (Basel), 3(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000382025. CrossRef

34.

Wu, Y., Huxley, R., Li, L., Anna, V., Xie, G., Yao, C., et al. (2008). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from the China National Nutrition and Health Survey 2002. Circulation, 118(25), 2679–2686. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.108.788166. CrossRefPubMed

35.

Wang, Z., Liu, R., Li, P., Jiang, C., & Hao, M. (2014). How to make diagnosis related groups payment more feasible in developing countries—A case study in Shanghai China. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(5), 572–578. PubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Martí-Pastor, M., Pont, A., Ávila, M., Garin, O., Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., et al. (2018). Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics, 16(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-018-0170-8. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0. CrossRefPubMed

38.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1. CrossRefPubMed

39.

Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Bilbao, A., García-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., García, I., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Trujillo-Martín, E., et al. (2018). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x. CrossRefPubMed

41.

Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309(5), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2. CrossRefPubMed

42.

Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x. CrossRefPubMed

43.

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, 23(8), 2355–2363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3. CrossRefPubMed

44.

Zhu, J., Yan, X. X., Liu, C. C., Wang, H., Wang, L., Cao, S. M., et al. (2020). Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: Suggestions for instrument choosing. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w. CrossRefPubMed

45.

Mulhern, B., Feng, Y., Shah, K., Janssen, M. F., Herdman, M., van Hout, B., et al. (2018). Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Rabin, R., Oppe, O. M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L user guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Version 1.0. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group.

47.

Yang, F., Jiang, S., He, X. N., Li, H. C., Wu, H. Y., Zhang, T. T., et al. (2020). Do rural residents in China understand EQ-5D-5L as intended? Evidence from a qualitative study. Pharmacoeconomics Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00212-z. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Liang, Z., Zhang, T., Lin, T., Liu, L., Wang, B., Fu, A. Z., et al. (2019). Health-related quality of life among rural men and women with hypertension: Assessment by the EQ-5D-5L in Jiangsu, China. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02139-3. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in 2018. https://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201902/t201902281651265.html.

50.

Tabulation of the 2010 population census of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm.

51.

Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value in Health, 11(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x. CrossRefPubMed

52.

Sui, H., Wang, W., Chen, W., & Ma, L. (2015). Chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community 2014. Journal of Hypertension, 33, E261–E261. CrossRef

53.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007. CrossRefPubMed

55.

Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016. CrossRefPubMed

56.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. CrossRefPubMed

57.

Bas Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6. CrossRefPubMed

58.

Pan, C. W., Sun, H. P., Wang, X., Ma, Q., Xu, Y., Luo, N., et al. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1767–1774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6. CrossRefPubMed

59.

Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., & Coons, S. J. (2009). 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. Medical Care, 47(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d92f8. CrossRefPubMed

60.

Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Genovese, B. J., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1997). Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 557–569. CrossRef

61.

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. CrossRef

62.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. CrossRef

63.

Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290. CrossRef

64.

Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Grimm, S., Pudney, S., Gomes, M., Sadique, Z., et al. (2018). EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value in Health, 21(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004. CrossRefPubMed

65.

Yang, F., Devlin, N., & Luo, N. (2019). Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: Does how the utilities are derived matter? Value in Health, 22(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.008. CrossRefPubMed

66.

Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Feng, Y., Herdman, M., van Nooten, F., Cleeland, C., Parkin, D., Ikeda, S., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1541-5. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81. CrossRefPubMed

69.

Rencz, F., Lakatos, P. L., Gulácsi, L., Brodszky, V., Kürti, Z., Lovas, S., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 28(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2003-4. CrossRefPubMed

70.

Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0. CrossRef

71.

Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y. S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x. CrossRefPubMed

72.

Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Gao, J., Wang, D., Zhang, Q., Zhou, Z., et al. (2016). Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors for patients with hypertension: Evidence from the urban and rural areas of Shaanxi Province, China. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1536-x. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Xu, R. H., Cheung, A. W. L., & Wong, E. L. (2017). Examining the health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-5L in patients with four kinds of chronic diseases from specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong SAR, China. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s143944. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Luo, N. (2018). Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

75.

Devlin, N., Brazier, J., Pickard, A. S., & Stolk, E. (2018). 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE conundrum. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 637–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0622-9. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Rundgren, J., Enocson, A., Mellstrand Navarro, C., & Bergström, G. (2018). Responsiveness of EQ-5D in patients with a distal radius fracture. Hand (N Y), 13(5), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717725378. CrossRef

77.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlińska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7. CrossRefPubMed

78.

Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Yang, J., et al. (2020). A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-w. CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China
Auteurs: Jie Jiang
Yanming Hong
Tiantian Zhang
Zhihao Yang
Tengfei Lin
Zhuoru Liang
Peiyao Lu
Lishun Liu
Binyan Wang
Yongmei Xu
Nan Luo
Publicatiedatum: 05-04-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2021

Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D

Valuation of the EQ-5D-3L in Russia

Agreement between proxy- and self-report scores on PROMIS health-related quality of life domains in pediatric burn survivors: a National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Burn Model System Study

Quality of life after hospitalization predicts one-year readmission risk in a large Swiss cohort of medical in-patients

Health state utility and quality of life measures in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in France

Health state utilities associated with treatment process for oral and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes