A comprehensive catalogue of EQ-5D scores in chronic disease: results of a systematic review
Chronic diseases are associated with impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. Comparison of HRQoL outcomes between different diseases and with the general population is of major importance to health economists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and policy makers. The aim of this systematic literature review was to develop a catalogue with EQ-5D scores in chronic non-communicable diseases, and to compare these scores with reference values from the general population.
MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched independently by two reviewers. Studies were included if they reported mean EQ-5D index values for the adult population and if these scores were compared with the general population. The QualSyst tool for quantitative research was used for quality appraisal.
Two hundred and seven articles met the inclusion criteria. An extensive catalogue summarizes the EQ-5D scores in a wide variety of chronic diseases. Mean EQ-5D index values ranged between − 0.20 and 1. Lower EQ-5D scores are reported in chronic diseases compared to the general population, specifically in neurological disorders. Most of the diseases demonstrate a substantial disutility, although a minority of diseases have equal or even higher index scores than the general population.
A comprehensive, international catalogue has been developed to provide EQ-5D index scores for diverse chronic diseases compared with reference values based on the available literature. The catalogue gives a clear overview of the existing EQ-5D scores and can be rapidly accessed by researchers worldwide for different applications such as health economic evaluations, decision making, resource allocation, and other policy objectives. Future studies should focus on unexamined diseases and specific patient groups to expand the evidence base on HRQoL in chronic diseases.
KeywordsHealth-related quality of life Utility EQ-5D Catalogue Chronic disease Cost-effectiveness analysis Health economic evaluation Systematic review
This study was funded by a Grant from Ghent University (Grant No. 01N02618) (Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds, BOF).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014. Retrieved August, 1, 2018, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/148114/9789241564854_eng.pdf;jsessionid=DE930A0A052CB03AB73898D75695E8F7?sequence=1.
- 2.World Health Organization. (2013). Global action plan for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases 2013–2020. Retrieved August, 1, 2018, from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequence=1.
- 4.GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. (2018). Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet,392(10159), 1789–1858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Schipper, H., & Olweny, C. (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: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.Google Scholar
- 6.Grool, A. M., van der Graaf, Y., Visseren, F. L., de Borst, G. J., Algra, A., & Geerlings, M. I. (2012). Self-rated health status as a risk factor for future vascular events and mortality in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic atherosclerotic disease: The SMART study. Journal of Internal Medicine,272(3), 277–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Mapes, D. L., Lopes, A. A., Satayathum, S., McCullough, K. P., Goodkin, D. A., Locatelli, F., et al. (2003). Health-related quality of life as a predictor of mortality and hospitalization: The Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). Kidney International,64(1), 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.JPT, H. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved April, 24, 2018, from www.handbook.cochrane.org.
- 20.Kmet, L. M., & Cook, L. S. (2004). Standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers from a variety of fields. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR),2011, 1–22.Google Scholar
- 23.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). (2013). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE.Google Scholar
- 32.Cherepanov, D., Palta, M., Fryback, D. G., & Robert, S. A. (2010). Gender differences in health-related quality-of-life are partly explained by sociodemographic and socioeconomic variation between adult men and women in the US: Evidence from four US nationally representative data sets. Quality of Life Research,19(8), 1115–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Wailoo, A., Hernandez Alava, M., Grimm, S., Pudney, S., Gomes, M., & Sadique, Z. (2017). Comparing the EQ-5D-3L and 5L versions. What are the implications for cost effectiveness estimates?Google Scholar