Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-06-2016

Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation

Auteurs: Poyu Chen, Keh-Chung Lin, Rong-Jiuan Liing, Ching-Yi Wu, Chia-Ling Chen, Ku-Chou Chang

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 6/2016

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the criterion validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) in people receiving rehabilitation after stroke.

Methods

The EQ-5D-5L, along with four criterion measures—the Medical Research Council scales for muscle strength, the Fugl–Meyer assessment, the functional independence measure, and the Stroke Impact Scale—was administered to 65 patients with stroke before and after 3- to 4-week therapy. Criterion validity was estimated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Responsiveness was analyzed by the effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and criterion responsiveness. The MCID was determined by anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. The percentage of patients exceeding the MCID was also reported.

Results

Concurrent validity of the EQ-Index was better compared with the EQ-VAS. The EQ-Index has better power for predicting the rehabilitation outcome in the activities of daily living than other motor-related outcome measures. The EQ-Index was moderately responsive to change (SRM = 0.63), whereas the EQ-VAS was only mildly responsive to change. The MCID estimation of the EQ-Index (the percentage of patients exceeding the MCID) was 0.10 (33.8 %) and 0.10 (33.8 %) based on the anchor-based and distribution-based approaches, respectively, and the estimation of EQ-VAS was 8.61 (41.5 %) and 10.82 (32.3 %).

Conclusions

The EQ-Index has shown reasonable concurrent validity, limited predictive validity, and acceptable responsiveness for detecting the health-related quality of life in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation, but not for EQ-VAS. Future research considering different recovery stages after stroke is warranted to validate these estimations.

vorige artikel Cardiff cardiac ablation patient-reported outcome measure (C-CAP): validation of a new questionnaire set for patients undergoing catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias in the UK

volgende artikel Validation of the EORTC QLQ-INFO 25 questionnaire in Lebanese cancer patients: Is ignorance a Bliss?

Go, A. S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V. L., Benjamin, E. J., Berry, J. D., Borden, W. B., et al. (2013). Heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(1), e6–e245. doi:10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad.CrossRefPubMed

Lai, S. M., Perera, S., Duncan, P. W., & Bode, R. (2003). Physical and social functioning after stroke: Comparison of the Stroke Impact Scale and Short Form-36. Stroke, 34(2), 488–493.CrossRefPubMed

Golomb, B. A., Vickrey, B. G., & Hays, R. D. (2001). A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics, 19(2), 155–185.CrossRefPubMed

Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., & Olweny, C. L. M. (1996). Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 11–23). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

Carod-Artal, F. J., & Egido, J. A. (2009). Quality of life after stroke: The importance of a good recovery. Cerebrovascular Diseases, 27(Suppl 1), 204–214. doi:10.1159/000200461.CrossRefPubMed

Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 207–219.CrossRefPubMed

Gray, L. J., Sprigg, N., Bath, P. M., Boysen, G., De Deyn, P. P., Leys, D., et al. (2007). Sex differences in quality of life in stroke survivors: Data from the Tinzaparin in Acute Ischaemic Stroke Trial (TAIST). Stroke, 38(11), 2960–2964. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.488304.CrossRefPubMed

Alguren, B., Fridlund, B., Cieza, A., Sunnerhagen, K. S., & Christensson, L. (2012). Factors associated with health-related quality of life after stroke: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 26(3), 266–274. doi:10.1177/1545968311414204.CrossRefPubMed

Lin, K. C., Fu, T., Wu, C. Y., & Hsieh, C. J. (2011). Assessing the stroke-specific quality of life for outcome measurement in stroke rehabilitation: Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 5. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Brazier, J., Jones, N., & Kind, P. (1993). Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 2, 169–180.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Harrison, M. J., Lunt, M., Verstappen, S. M., Watson, K. D., Bansback, N. J., & Symmons, D. P. (2010). Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the health assessment questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 21. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-8-21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Linde, L., Sorensen, J., Ostergaard, M., Horslev-Petersen, K., & Hetland, M. L. (2008). Health-related quality of life: Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, 15D, EQ-5D RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Journal of Rheumatology, 35(8), 1528–1537.PubMed

13.

Obradovic, M., Lal, A., & Liedgens, H. (2013). Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 110. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-11-110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Dorman, P., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1998). Qualitative comparison of the reliability of health status assessments with the EuroQol and SF-36 questionnaires after stroke. United Kingdom Collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke, 29(1), 63–68.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Dorman, P. J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1999). How do scores on the EuroQol relate to scores on the SF-36 after stroke? Stroke, 30(10), 2146–2151.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Dorman, P. J., Slattery, J., Farrell, B., Dennis, M. S., & Sandercock, P. A. (1997). A randomised comparison of the EuroQol and Short Form-36 after stroke. United Kingdom collaborators in the International Stroke Trial. BMJ, 315(7106), 461.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Dorman, P. J., Waddell, F., Slattery, J., Dennis, M., & Sandercock, P. (1997). Is the EuroQol a valid measure of health-related quality of life after stroke? Stroke, 28(10), 1876–1882.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1205–1216. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0024-3.CrossRefPubMed

19.

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

20.

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

21.

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlinska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 845–850. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0834-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlinska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2014). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1563. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

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(2), 102–109. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics, 18(5), 419–423.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Crum, R. M., Anthony, J. C., Bassett, S. S., & Folstein, M. F. (1993). Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. JAMA, 269(18), 2386–2391.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Bohannon, R. W., & Smith, M. B. (1987). Interrater reliability of a modified Ashworth scale of muscle spasticity. Physical Therapy, 67(2), 206–207.PubMed

28.

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(5), 708–715. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., et al. (2002). Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: The case of Japan. Health Economics, 11(4), 341–353. doi:10.1002/hec.673.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Council, M. R. (1976). Aids to examination of the peripheral nervous system. London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office.

31.

Swash, M., Brown, M. M., & Thakkar, C. (1995). CT muscle imaging and the clinical assessment of neuromuscular disease. Muscle and Nerve, 18(7), 708–714. doi:10.1002/mus.880180706.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Tzvetanov, P., & Rousseff, R. T. (2003). Median SSEP changes in hemiplegic stroke: Long-term predictive values regarding ADL recovery. NeuroRehabilitation, 18(4), 317–324.PubMed

33.

Paternostro-Sluga, T., Grim-Stieger, M., Posch, M., Schuhfried, O., Vacariu, G., Mittermaier, C., et al. (2008). Reliability and validity of the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and a modified scale for testing muscle strength in patients with radial palsy. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 40(8), 665–671. doi:10.2340/16501977-0235.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Fugel-Meyer, A. R., Jaasko, L., Leyman, I., Ollson, S., & Steglind, S. (1975). The poststroke hemiplegic patient. 1. A method for evaluation of physical performance. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 7, 13–31.

35.

Platz, T., Pinkowski, C., van Wijck, F., Kim, I. H., di Bella, P., & Johnson, G. (2005). Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the Fugl–Meyer Test, Action Research Arm Test and Box and Block Test: A multicentre study. Clinical Rehabilitation, 19(4), 404–411.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Hsieh, Y. W., Wu, C. Y., Lin, K. C., Chang, Y. F., Chen, C. L., & Liu, J. S. (2009). Responsiveness and validity of three outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke, 40(4), 1386–1391. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.530584.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Cohen, M. E., & Marino, R. J. (2000). The tools of disability outcomes research functional status measures. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(12 Suppl 2), S21–S29.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Granger, C. V. (1998). The emerging science of functional assessment: Our tool for outcomes analysis. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 79(3), 235–240.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Chau, N., Daler, S., Andre, J. M., & Patris, A. (1994). Inter-rater agreement of two functional independence scales: The Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and a subjective uniform continuous scale. Disability and Rehabilitation, 16(2), 63–71.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Dodds, T. A., Martin, D. P., Stolov, W. C., & Deyo, R. A. (1993). A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 74(5), 531–536.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Wallace, D., Duncan, P. W., & Lai, S. M. (2002). Comparison of the responsiveness of the Barthel Index and the motor component of the Functional Independence Measure in stroke: The impact of using different methods for measuring responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(9), 922–928.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Carod-Artal, F. J., Coral, L. F., Trizotto, D. S., & Moreira, C. M. (2008). The stroke impact scale 3.0: Evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity of the Brazilian version. Stroke, 39(9), 2477–2484. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.513671.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Lin, K. C., Fu, T., Wu, C. Y., Hsieh, Y. W., Chen, C. L., & Lee, P. C. (2010). Psychometric comparisons of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0 and Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale. Quality of Life Research, 19(3), 435–443. doi:10.1007/s11136-010-9597-5.CrossRefPubMed

44.

De Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., & Knol, D. L. (2011). Measurement in medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

45.

Nichols-Larsen, D. S., Clark, P. C., Zeringue, A., Greenspan, A., & Blanton, S. (2005). Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke, 36(7), 1480–1484. doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Sidiras, G., Patsaki, I., Dakoutrou, M., Karatzanos, E., Gerovasili, V., Kouvarakos, A., et al. (2012). Muscle strength assessment of critically ill patients is associated with functional ability and quality of life at hospital discharge. Paper presented at the 32nd international symposium on intensive care and emergency medicine, Brussels, Belgium.

47.

Abubakar, S. A., & Isezuo, S. A. (2012). Health related quality of life of stroke survivors: Experience of a stroke unit. International Journal of Biomedical Sciences, 8(3), 183–187.

48.

Husted, J. A., Cook, R. J., Farewell, V. T., & Gladman, D. D. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 459–468.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Wright, J. G., & Young, N. L. (1997). A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(3), 239–246.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavior sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

51.

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(5), 582–592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C.PubMed

52.

Lin, K. C., Fu, T., Wu, C. Y., Wang, Y. H., Liu, J. S., Hsieh, C. J., et al. (2010). Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 24(5), 486–492. doi:10.1177/1545968309356295.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Duncan, P. W., Wallace, D., Lai, S. M., Johnson, D., Embretson, S., & Laster, L. J. (1999). The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke, 30(10), 2131–2140.CrossRefPubMed

54.

Zorowitz, R. D., Smout, R. J., Gassaway, J. A., & Horn, S. D. (2005). Usage of pain medications during stroke rehabilitation: The Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Outcomes Project (PSROP). Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 12(4), 37–49. doi:10.1310/C7MF-VLR0-CKDL-3C44.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Ahlsio, B., Britton, M., Murray, V., & Theorell, T. (1984). Disablement and quality of life after stroke. Stroke, 15(5), 886–890.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Sagberg, L. M., Jakola, A. S., & Solheim, O. (2013). Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: What is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference? Quality of Life Research, 23(5), 1427–1434. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0593-4.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Pickard, A. S., Neary, M. P., & Cella, D. (2007). Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation
Auteurs: Poyu Chen
Keh-Chung Lin
Rong-Jiuan Liing
Ching-Yi Wu
Chia-Ling Chen
Ku-Chou Chang
Publicatiedatum: 01-06-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1196-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2016

Gender differences in the impact of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions on health-related quality of life among non-demented primary care elderly patients

Validation of a new patient-reported outcome instrument of health-related quality of life specific to patients with alcohol use disorder: the Alcohol Quality of Life Scale (AQoLS)

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2016

Gender differences in the impact of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions on health-related quality of life among non-demented primary care elderly patients

Validation of a new patient-reported outcome instrument of health-related quality of life specific to patients with alcohol use disorder: the Alcohol Quality of Life Scale (AQoLS)

Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease in Turkey: influence of different treatment modalities at 6-month follow-up

Health literacy and health-related quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study

Validation of the EORTC QLQ-INFO 25 questionnaire in Lebanese cancer patients: Is ignorance a Bliss?

Structural and construct validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Gender differences in the impact of mental disorders and chronic physical conditions on health-related quality of life among non-demented primary care elderly patients

Validation of a new patient-reported outcome instrument of health-related quality of life specific to patients with alcohol use disorder: the Alcohol Quality of Life Scale (AQoLS)

Quality of life in patients with chronic venous disease in Turkey: influence of different treatment modalities at 6-month follow-up

Health literacy and health-related quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes: a longitudinal study

Validation of the EORTC QLQ-INFO 25 questionnaire in Lebanese cancer patients: Is ignorance a Bliss?

Structural and construct validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale