Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-5L with two versions of the SF-6Dv2 in patients with breast cancer

  • Published:
Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EQ-5D-5L and two versions of the SF-6D version 2 (i.e., SF-6Dv2ind-10 that is derived from 10 items of the SF-36v2, and SF-6Dv2SF-36 that is derived from its combination with the full SF-36v2) are used to drive utilities. The study was prospected to compare the performance of these instruments in breast cancer patients. Data were gathered from 418 patients with breast cancer using three questionnaires including the EQ-5D-5L, SF-36v2, and SF-6Dv2ind-6. The differences between the mean utilities of instruments were tested by t-test. The correlation between the dimensions scores of instruments was estimated by Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ). The level of agreement between the instruments score was assessed by ICC and Bland–Altman plot. The correlations between theoretically related pairs of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2SF-36 were stronger than those of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2ind-6. The ICC between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2ind-6 was 0.64, and between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2SF-36 was 0.48. The Bland–Altman plot showed that there was a poorer agreement on the lower values. The EQ-5D-5L had more similarity with the SF-6Dv2ind-6 in comparison with the SF-6Dv2SF-36. Nevertheless, there are still significant differences between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agborsangaya, C.B., Lahtinen, M., Cooke, T., Johnson, J.A.: Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 12(1), 74 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Al Sayah, F., Qiu, W., Xie, F., Johnson, J.A.: Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual. Life Res. 26(8), 2057–2066 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ameri, H., Yousefi, M., Yaseri, M., Nahvijou, A., Arab, M., Akbari Sari, A.: Mapping the cancer-specific QLQ-C30 onto the generic EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in colorectal cancer patients. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 19(1), 89–96 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, C.A., Rosen, A.B., Greenberg, D., Neumann, P.J.: Trends in the measurement of health utilities in published cost-utility analyses. Value Health 9(4), 213–218 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, J.E., Mulhern, B.J., Bjorner, J.B., Gandek, B., Rowen, D., Alonso, J., et al.: Developing a new version of the SF-6D Health State Classification System From the SF-36v2: SF-6Dv2. Med. Care 58(6), 557–565 (2020)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, J.E., Roberts, J.: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med. Care. 42, 851–9 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., Busschbach, J.: A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 13(9), 873–884 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, J., Usherwood, T., Harper, R., Thomas, K.: Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 51(11), 1115–1128 (1998)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, L.N., Ferreira, P.L., Pereira, L.N., Rowen, D., Brazier, J.E.: Exploring the consistency of the SF-6D. Value in Health. 16(6), 1023–1031 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Foundation ER. EQ-5D-5L [

  • Gamst-Klaussen, T., Chen, G., Lamu, A.N., Olsen, J.A.: Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D. Qual. Life Res. 25(7), 1667–1678 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giavarina, D.: Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochemia Medica: Biochemia Medica. 25(2), 141–151 (2015)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Green, C., Brazier, J., Deverill, M.: Review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 17(2), 151–165 (2000)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 20(10), 1727–1736 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hout, B., Janssen, M., Feng, Y.-S., 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 in health. 15(5), 708–715 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kanters, T., Redekop, W., Kruijshaar, M., Van Der Ploeg, A., Rutten-van Mölken, M., Hakkaart, L.: Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in Pompe disease. Qual. Life Res. 24(4), 837–844 (2015)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S.H., Kim, H.J., Lee, S-i, Jo, M.-W.: Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Qual. Life Res. 21(6), 1065–73 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kontodimopoulos, N., Pappa, E., Papadopoulos, A.A., Tountas, Y., Niakas, D.: Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual. Life Res. 18(1), 87–97 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lidgren, M., Wilking, N., Jönsson, B., Rehnberg, C.: Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual. Life Res. 16(6), 1073–1081 (2007)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, M., Caro, J.J.: QALYs. Pharmacoeconomics 24(10), 947–952 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mukaka, M.M.: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med. J. 24(3), 69–71 (2012)

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nice, U.: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), London (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Obradovic, M., Lal, A., Liedgens, H.: Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes 11(1), 110 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, A.S., De Leon, M.C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., Rosenbloom, S.: Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Med. Care 45(3), 259–263 (2007a)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pickard, A.S., Neary, M.P., Cella, D.: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 5(1), 70 (2007b)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Poder, T.G., Fauteux. V., He. J., Brazier, J.E.: Consistency between three different ways of administering the short form 6 Dimension Version 2. Value in Health (2019)

  • Sakthong, P., Munpan, W.: A head-to-head comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L value sets in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy. 15(5), 669–679 (2017)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thaweethamcharoen, T., Noparatayaporn, P., Sritippayawan, S., Aiyasanon, N.: Comparison of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai patients on peritoneal dialysis. Value Health Reg. Issues. 18, 59–64 (2019)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F., Lau, T., Lee, E., Vathsala, A., Chia, K.S., Luo, N.: Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur. J. Health Econ. 16(9), 1019–1026 (2015)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yousefi, M., Najafi, S., Ghaffari, S., Mahboub-Ahari, A., Ghaderi, H.: Comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D scores in patients with breast cancer. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 18(5), e23556 (2016)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cancer Research Center, Cancer Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Azin Nahvijou

  2. Health Promotion Research Centre, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Hossein Safari

  3. Health Policy and Management Research Center, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Hosein Ameri

Authors
  1. Azin Nahvijou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hossein Safari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hosein Ameri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hosein Ameri.

Ethics declarations

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee (the Imam Khomeini Cancer Institute + IR.TUMS.SPH.REC. 1396.4880) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PNG 22 kb)

Supplementary file2 (PNG 46 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nahvijou, A., Safari, H. & Ameri, H. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-5L with two versions of the SF-6Dv2 in patients with breast cancer. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 20, 183–194 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00215-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-020-00215-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation