Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review
- 718 Downloads
The EQ-5D is one of the most frequently used, generic, preference-based instruments for measuring the health utilities of patients in economic evaluations. It is recommended for health technology assessment by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Because the EQ-5D plays such an important role in economic evaluations, useful information on its responsiveness to detect meaningful change in health status is required.
This study systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence on the responsiveness of the EQ-5D to detect meaningful change in health status for clinical research and economic evaluations.
We searched the EuroQol website, PubMed, PsychINFO, and EconLit databases to identify studies published in English from the inception of the EQ-5D until August 15, 2014 using keywords that were related to responsiveness. Studies that used only the EQ-VAS were excluded from the final analysis. Narrative synthesis was conducted to summarize evidence on the responsiveness of the EQ-5D by conditions or physiological functions.
Of 1401 studies, 145 were included in the narrative synthesis and categorized into 19 categories for 56 conditions. The EQ-5D was found to be responsive in 25 conditions (45 %) with the magnitude of responsiveness varying from small to large depending on the condition. There was mixed evidence of responsiveness in 27 conditions (48 %). Only four conditions (7 %) (i.e., alcohol dependency, schizophrenia, limb reconstruction, and hearing impairment) were identified where the EQ-5D was not responsive.
The EQ-5D is an appropriate measure for economic evaluation and health technology assessment in conditions where it has demonstrated evidence of responsiveness. In conditions with mixed evidence of responsiveness, researchers should consider using the EQ-5D with other condition-specific measures to ensure appropriate estimates of effectiveness. These conditions should be a main focus for future research using the new EQ-5D version with five response levels.
KeywordsHealth Technology Assessment Standardize Response Means Population Weight External Anchor Responsiveness Information
Area under the curve
Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- EQ-5D 5L
EuroQol-5 dimension 5 level descriptive system
EuroQol-5 dimension 3 level descriptive system
EuroQol-visual analogue scale
European League against Rheumatism
Health-related quality of life
Health Utilities Index
Health Utilities Index Mark 3
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
New York Heart Association class
Quality-adjusted life year
Standardized response means
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index
No funding has been received for conducting and preparing this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
NP: study rationale and design, literature selection, quality assessment of studies, data extraction, evidence synthesis, interpretation and reflection, writing and reviewing of the manuscript, guarantor of the study. MMA: literature search, literature selection, data extraction, quality assessment of studies, writing of the manuscript. JMT: study rationale and design, interpretation and reflection, writing and reviewing of the manuscript.
- 2.NICE. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2013. http://www.nice.org.uk/article/pmg9/resources/non-guidance-guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 8.Oemar M, Oppe M. EQ-5D-3L User Guide. EuroQol Group. 2013. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2013_v5.0_October_2013.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 9.Gray AM, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, Wordsworth S. Measuring, valuing, and analysing health outcomes. In: Gray AM, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, Wordsworth S, editors. Applied methods of cost-effectiveness analysis in healthcare. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 83–118.Google Scholar
- 10.Szende A, Oppe M, Devlin N. EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. EuroQol Group Monographs, vol 2. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007.Google Scholar
- 12.EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L Value Sets. EuroQol Research Foundation. 2014. http://www.euroqol.org/about-eq-5d/valuation-of-eq-5d/eq-5d-5l-value-sets.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 13.Brazier J, Connell J, Papaioannou D, Mukuria C, Mulhern B, Peasgood T, Jones ML, Paisley S, O’Cathain A, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Gilbody S, Parry G. A systematic review, psychometric analysis and qualitative assessment of generic preference-based measures of health in mental health populations and the estimation of mapping functions from widely used specific measures. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(34):11–19 (vii-viii, xiii-xxv, 1–188).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Yang Y, Brazier J, Longworth L. EQ-5D in skin conditions: an assessment of validity and responsiveness. Eur J Health Econ. 2014. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 15.Davies N, Gibbons E, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for women with breast cancer. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford. 2009. http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk/pdf/CancerReviews/PROMs_Oxford_BreastCancer_012011.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 18.EuroQol Group. EQ-5D References - Reference Search. EuroQol Research Foundation. 2014. http://www.euroqol.org/eq-5d-references/reference-search.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 20.Hays RD, Revicki DA. Reliability and validity (including responsiveness). In: Fayers PM, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 25–39.Google Scholar
- 22.Simundic AM. Measures of diagnostic accuracy: basic definition. http://www.ifcc.org/ifccfiles/docs/190404200805.pdf. 2011. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 37.Peasgood T, Brazier J, Papaioannou D. A systematic review of the validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D for depression and anxiety. The University of Sheffield, UK, White Rose Research Online. http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/74659/1/12.15.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
- 38.Sonntag M, Konnopka A, Leichsenring F, Salzer S, Beutel ME, Herpertz S, Hiller W, Hoyer J, Joraschky P, Nolting B, Pöhlmann K, Stangier U, Strauss B, Willutzki U, Wiltink J, Leibing E, König HH. Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with social phobia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:215. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-215.:215-11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, McCoy MJ, Verstappen SM, Watson K. Symmons DP; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1195–205.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Hagel S, Lindqvist E, Petersson IF, Nilsson JÅ, Bremander A. Validation of outcome measurement instruments used in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention for patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis: linking of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, construct validity and responsiveness to change. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(5):411–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Buitinga L, Braakman-Jansen LM, Taal E, Kievit W, Visser H, van Riel PL, van de Laar MA. Comparative responsiveness of the EuroQol-5D and Short Form 6D to improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tumor necrosis factor blockers: results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring registry. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012;64(6):826–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Paterson C, Langan CE, McKaig GA, Anderson PM, Maclaine GD, Rose LB, Walker SJ, Campbell MJ. Assessing patient outcomes in acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis: the measure your medical outcome profile (MYMOP), medical outcomes study 6-item general health survey (MOS-6A) and EuroQol (EQ-5D). Qual Life Res. 2000;9(5):521–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Jenkinson C, Gray A, Doll H, Lawrence K, Keoghane S, Layte R. Evaluation of index and profile measures of health status in a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, EuroQol, and disease specific measures. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1109–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Lee CF, Luo N, Ng R, Wong NS, Yap YS, Lo SK, Chia WK, Yee A, Krishna L, Wong C, Goh C, Cheung YB. 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. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1745–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Kvam AK, Fayers PM, Wisloff F. Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2011;87(4):330–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.PD Med Collaborative Group. Gray R, Ives N, Rick C, Patel S, Gray A, Jenkinson C, McIntosh E, Wheatley K, Williams A, Clarke CE. Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson’s disease (PD MED): a large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9949):1196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Fenwick EK, Xie J, Ratcliffe J, Pesudovs K, Finger RP, Wong TY, Lamoureux EL. The impact of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema on health-related quality of life in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(2):677–84. doi: 10.1167/iovs.11-8992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 100.Campbell H, Rivero-Arias O, Johnston K, Gray A, Fairbank J, Frost H, UK MRC Spine Stabilization Trial. Responsiveness of objective, disease-specific, and generic outcome measures in patients with chronic low back pain: an assessment for improving, stable, and deteriorating patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(7):815–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 105.The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.Google Scholar
- 106.Feeny D. Preference-based meausres: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Fayers P, Hays R, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 405–30.Google Scholar
- 110.Grosse SD, Chaugule SS, Hay JW. Estimates of utility weights in hemophilia: implications for cost-utility analysis of clotting factor prophylaxis. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2015;1–17. [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
- 113.Fairclough DL. Study design and protocol development. In: Fairclough DL, editor. Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2010. p. 29–52.Google Scholar
- 116.Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.Google Scholar