Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2018

08-02-2018

Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement

Auteurs: Barbara L. Conner-Spady, Deborah A. Marshall, Eric Bohm, Michael J. Dunbar, Tom W. Noseworthy

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2018

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

(1) To assess responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L compared to Oxford hip and knee scores and the SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip (THR) or knee (TKR) replacement surgery; (2) to compare distribution and anchor-based methods of assessing responsiveness.

Methods

Questionnaires were mailed to consecutive patients following surgeon referral for primary THR or TKR and 1 year post-surgery. We assessed effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and standard error of measurement (SEM). Minimum important difference (MID) was the mean change in patients reporting somewhat better in hip or knee, health in general, and those who were satisfied with surgery (5-point scales). Responders were compared using MID versus 1 and 2SEM.

Results

The sample of 537 (50% TKR) was composed of 56% female with a mean age of 64 years (SD 10). EQ-5D-5L ES was 1.86 (THR) and 1.19 (TKR) compared to 3.00 and 2.05 for Oxford scores, respectively. MID for the EQ-5D-5L was 0.22 (THR) and 0.20 (TKR) for patients who rated their hip or knee as somewhat better. There was a wide variation in the MID and the percentage of responders, depending on the joint, method of assessment, and the outcome measure. The percent agreement of responder classification using 2SEM vs. MID ranged from 79.6 to 99.6% for the EQ-5D-5L and from 69.4 to 94.8% for the Oxford scores.

Conclusions

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L was acceptable in TKR and THR. Caution should be taken in interpreting responder to TJR based on only one method of assessment.
vorige artikel Measuring health related quality of life (HRQoL) in community and facility-based care settings with the interRAI assessment instruments: development of a crosswalk to HUI3
volgende artikel Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China
Literatuur
1.
Jones, C. A., Beaupre, L. A., Johnston, D. W., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2005). Total joint arthroplasties: Current concepts of patient outcomes after surgery. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 21, 527–41.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Franklin, P. D., Lewallen, D., Bozic, K., Hallstrom, B., Jiranek, W., & Ayers, D. C. (2014). Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in U.S. Total joint replacement registries: rationale, status, and plans. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 96(Suppl 1), 104–109.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Lin, F. J., Samp, J., Munoz, A., Wong, P. S., & Pickard, A. S. (2014). Evaluating change using patient-reported outcome measures in knee replacement: The complementary nature of the EQ-5D index and VAS scores. The European Journal of Health Economics, 15, 489–496.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ethgen, O., Bruyere, O., Richy, F., Dardennes, C., & Reginster, J. Y. (2004). Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 86-A, 963–974.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Anakwe, R. E., Jenkins, P. J., & Moran, M. (2011). Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: A study of 850 patients. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 26, 209–213.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Gandhi, R., Davey, J. R., & Mahomed, N. N. (2008). Predicting patient dissatisfaction following joint replacement surgery. The Journal of Rheumatology, 35, 2415–2418.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Scott, C. E., Howie, C. R., MacDonald, D., & Biant, L. C. (2010). Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 92, 1253–1258.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Judge, A., Cooper, C., Williams, S., Dreinhoefer, K., & Dieppe, P. (2010). Patient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care & Research, 62, 480–488.CrossRef
9.
Rolfson, O., Eresian, C. K., Bohm, E., Lubbeke, A., Denissen, G., Dunn, J., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthopaedica, 87(Suppl 1), 3–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In (In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
11.
SooHoo, N. F., Li, Z., Chenok, K. E., & Bozic, K. J. (2015). Responsiveness of patient reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty patients. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 30, 176–191.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Ostendorf, M., van Stel, H. F., Buskens, E., Schrijvers, A. J., Marting, L. N., Verbout, A. J., et al. (2004). Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 86, 801–808.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Jenkins, P. J., Clement, N. D., Hamilton, D. F., Gaston, P., Patton, J. T., & Howie, C. R. (2013). Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. The Bone & Joint Journal, 95-B, 115–121.CrossRef
15.
Giesinger, K., Hamilton, D. F., Jost, B., Holzner, B., & Giesinger, J. M. (2014). Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 22, 184–189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Fransen, M., & Edmonds, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology, 38, 807–813.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wolfe, F., & Hawley, D. J. (1997). Measurement of the quality of life in rheumatic disorders using the EuroQol. British Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 786–793.CrossRefPubMed
18.
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, 1727–1736CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Luo, N., Li, M., Chevalier, J., Lloyd, A., & Herdman, M. (2013). A comparison of the scaling properties of the English, Spanish, French, and Chinese EQ-5D descriptive systems. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2237–2243.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2245–2253.CrossRefPubMed
21.
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, 443–447.CrossRefPubMed
22.
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, 1065–1073.CrossRefPubMed
23.
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, 2355–2363.CrossRefPubMed
24.
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, 259–263.CrossRefPubMed
25.
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, 1707–1716.CrossRefPubMed
26.
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, 1717–1727.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. The Bone & Joint Journal, 78, 185–190.
28.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Murray, D., & Carr, A. (1998). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. The Bone & Joint Journal, 80, 63–69.
29.
Murray, D. W., Fitzpatrick, R., Rogers, K., Pandit, H., Beard, D. J., Carr, A. J., et al. (2007). The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. The Bone & Joint Journal, 89, 1010–1014.
30.
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, 708–715.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Ware, J. Jr., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220–233.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Gonzalez Saenz, dT., Escobar, A., Herrera, C., Garcia, L., Aizpuru, F., & Sarasqueta, C. (2010). Patient expectations and health-related quality of life outcomes following total joint replacement. Value Health, 13, 447–454.CrossRef
33.
Garbuz, D. S., Xu, M., & Sayre, E. C. (2006). Patients’ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 21, 998–1004.CrossRefPubMed
34.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Conner-Spady, B. L., Marshall, D. A., Bohm, E., Dunbar, M. J., Loucks, L., Khudairy, A., A. et al (2015). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1775–1784.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Benson, T., Williams, D. H., & Potts, H. W. (2016). Performance of EQ-5D, howRu and Oxford hip & knee scores in assessing the outcome of hip and knee replacements. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 512.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11, 171–184.CrossRef
38.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
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, 102–109.CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Escobar, A., Quintana, J. M., Bilbao, A., Arostegui, I., Lafuente, I., & Vidaurreta, I. (2007). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 15, 273–280.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Bilbao, A., Arostegui, I., Lafuente, I., & Vidaurreta, I. (2005). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 13, 1076–1083.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Lydick, E., & Epstein, R. S. (1993). Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality of Life Research, 2, 221–226.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Norman, G. R., Sridhar, F. G., Guyatt, G. H., & Walter, S. D. (2001). Relation of distribution- and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Medical Care, 39, 1039–1047.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41, 582–592.PubMed
47.
Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD, 2, 63–67.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10, 407–415.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Ramkumar, P. N., Harris, J. D., & Noble, P. C. (2015). Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone & Joint Research, 4, 120–127.CrossRef
50.
Escobar, A., Garcia, P. L., Herrera-Espineira, C., Aizpuru, F., & Sarasqueta, C. (2013). Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 21, 2006–2012CrossRefPubMed
51.
Terwee, C. B., Roorda, L. D., Knol, D. L., de Boer, M. R., & de Vet, H. C. (2009). Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1062–1067.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Quintana, J. M., Aguirre, U., Barrio, I., Orive, M., Garcia, S., & Escobar, A. (2012). Outcomes after total hip replacement based on patients’ baseline status: what results can be expected? Arthritis Care & Research, 64, 563–572.CrossRef
53.
Hawker, G. A., Badley, E. M., Borkhoff, C. M., Croxford, R., Davis, A. M., Dunn, S., et al. (2013). Which patients are most likely to benefit from total joint arthroplasty? Arthritis & Rheumatism, 65, 1243–1252.CrossRef
54.
Haase, E., Kopkow, C., Beyer, F., Lutzner, J., Kirschner, S., Hartmann, A., et al. (2016). Patient-reported outcomes and outcome predictors after primary total hip arthroplasty: results from the Dresden Hip Surgery Registry. Hip International, 26, 73–81.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Berliner, J. L., Brodke, D. J., Chan, V., SooHoo, N. F., & Bozic, K. J. (2016). John Charnley Award: Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474, 321–329.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Lee, W. C., Kwan, Y. H., Chong, H. C., & Yeo, S. J. (2017). The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25, 3354–3359.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Clement, N. D., MacDonald, D., & Simpson, A. H. (2014). The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 22, 1933–1939.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Beard, D. J., Harris, K., Dawson, J., Doll, H., Murray, D. W., Carr, A. J., et al. (2015). Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 73–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
59.
Conner-Spady, B., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2003). Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Medical Care, 41, 791–801.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Impellizzeri, F. M., Leunig, M., Preiss, S., Guggi, T., & Mannion, A. F. (2017). The use of the Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI) in patients undergoing total knee replacement. The Knee, 24, 370–372.CrossRef
61.
Jenny, J. Y., Louis, P., & Diesinger, Y. (2014). High activity arthroplasty score has a lower ceiling effect than standard scores after knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 29, 719–721.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Frost, S., Gundle, R., McLardy-Smith, P., & Murray, D. (2001). Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 83, 1125–1129.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Naylor, J. M., Kamalasena, G., Hayen, A., Harris, I. A., & Adie, S. (2013). Can the Oxford Scores be used to monitor symptomatic progression of patients awaiting knee or hip arthroplasty? The Journal of Arthroplasty, 28, 1454–1458.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Poitras, S., Beaule, P. E., & Dervin, G. F. (2012). Validity of a short-term quality of life questionnaire in patients undergoing joint replacement: the Quality of Recovery-40. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 27, 1604–1608.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532.CrossRefPubMed
66.
67.
Escobar, A., Gonzalez, M., Quintana, J. M., Vrotsou, K., Bilbao, A., Herrera-Espineira, C., et al. (2012). Patient acceptable symptom state and OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria in joint replacement. Identification of cut-off values. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 20, 87–92.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Beaton, D. E., Boers, M., & Wells, G. A. (2002). Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Current Opinion in Rheumatology, 14, 109–114.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement
Auteurs
Barbara L. Conner-Spady
Deborah A. Marshall
Eric Bohm
Michael J. Dunbar
Tom W. Noseworthy
Publicatiedatum
08-02-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1808-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2018

Quality of Life Research 5/2018 Naar de uitgave

Review

Quality of life among parents of preterm infants: a scoping review

OriginalPaper

Norwegian reference values for the Short-Form Health Survey 36: development over time

OriginalPaper

COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study

OriginalPaper

Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation

OriginalPaper

Health state utilities and subjective well-being among psoriasis vulgaris patients in mainland China

OriginalPaper

Disparities in women’s cancer-related quality of life by Southern Appalachian residence