Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement
- 1k Downloads
To assess the test–retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and compare the validity of the 5L and EQ-5D-3L (3L) in osteoarthritis patients referred to an orthopaedic surgeon for total joint replacement.
We mailed questionnaires to 306 consecutive patients following referral and a second questionnaire after 2 weeks to assess reliability. Questionnaires included the 5L, EQ-VAS, Short Form-12, Oxford hip and knee scores, pain VAS, and the 3L. We compared the ceiling effect, redistribution properties, convergent and discriminant validity, and discriminatory power of the 5L and 3L.
We obtained 176 respondents (response rate 58 %), 60 % female, 64 % knee patients, mean age 65 years (SD 11), with no significant differences between responders versus non-responders. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.61–0.77 for the 5L dimensions and 0.87 for the 5L index. For the 3L, most patients used level 2 (some/moderate problems) for mobility (87 %), usual activities (78 %), and pain/discomfort (71 %). In comparison, 5L responses were spread out with only 52, 42, and 50 %, respectively, using the middle level. All convergent validity coefficients were stronger with the 5L (Spearman coefficients 0.51–0.75). Absolute informativity (Shannon’s index) showed higher results for all dimensions of the 5L compared with the 3L (average difference 0.74). Relative informativity (Shannon’s evenness index) showed an increase from the 3L to the 5L in mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.
The 5L provided stronger validity evidence than the 3L, especially for dimensions relevant to this patient population—mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.
KeywordsEQ-5D-5L EQ-5D-3L Reliability Validity Total joint replacement Osteoarthritis
This study was funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (Grant #ETG92252) and Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions (Grant # 200700596). We thank the research personnel who were responsible for project management and patient recruitment: Allan Hennigar and Sarah Tran.
Conflict of interest
- 3.Laupacis, A., Bourne, R., Rorabeck, C., Feeny, D., Wong, C., Tugwell, P., et al. (1993). The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 75(11), 1619–1626.Google Scholar
- 12.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. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 86(6), 801–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.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.Google Scholar
- 21.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.Google Scholar
- 25.Dawson, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Carr, A., & Murray, D. (1996). Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 78(2), 185–190.Google Scholar
- 28.Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- 29.Feldt, L. S., Brennan, R. L. (2002). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 105–146). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- 30.Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales A practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 32.Validity, M. S. (1989). In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13–103). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- 34.Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., & Jaeschke, R. (1996). How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 49–56). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
- 38.Lee, C. F., Luo, N., Ng, R., Wong, N. S., Yap, Y. S., Lo, S. K., et al. (2013). Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1745–1751.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Wu, A. W., Jacobson, K. L., Frick, K. D., Clark, R., Revicki, D. A., Freedberg, K. A., et al. (2002). Validity and responsiveness of the euroqol as a measure of health-related quality of life in people enrolled in an AIDS clinical trial. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar