Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea
- 990 Downloads
This study was conducted to assess the redistribution properties of the EQ-5D-3L when using the EQ-5D-5L and to compare the validity, informativity, and reliability of both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in Korean cancer patients.
Patients visiting one ambulatory cancer center self-administered the two versions of the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Redistribution properties in each dimension of EQ-5D were analyzed between EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Informativity was evaluated using the Shannon entropy and ceiling effect. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales. Reliability was also evaluated in terms of test–retest reliability.
All levels of the EQ-5D-3L substantially partitioned into associated levels of the EQ-5D-5L. The average inconsistency rate of the two versions was 3.5%. Absolute informativity was higher for the EQ-5D-5L than for the EQ-5D-3L, but their informative efficiency tended to be similar. The proportion of ‘perfect health’ (11111) decreased from 16.8% in the EQ-5D-3L to 9.7% in the EQ-5D-5L. EQ-5D-5L demonstrated similar or higher correlations with the EQ-VAS, ECOG performance status, and EORTC QLQ-C30, than the EQ-5D-3L. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the EQ-5D-5L index was 0.77.
The EQ-5D-5L had greater informativity and lower rate in the ceiling effect than those values of the EQ-5D-3L. The EQ-5D-5L showed good construct validity and reasonable reliability. Therefore, considering these findings, the EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to the EQ-5D-3L.
KeywordsEQ-5D Health-related quality of life Cancer Psychometrics
Eastern Cancer Oncology Group
3-level version of EQ-5D
5-level version of EQ-5D
- EORTC QLQ-C30
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30
- EU ISPOR
European Union International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Health-related quality of life
Health utility index mark 2
Health utility index mark 3
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Short form 6 dimension
Visual analogue scale
- 5.Brooks, R., Rabin, R. E., & de Charro, F. (2003). The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- 6.Campbell, H., Rivero-Arias, O., Johnston, K., Gray, A., Fairbank, J., & Frost, H. (2006). 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), 31(7), 815–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Gusi, N., Tomas-Carus, P., Hakkinen, A., Hakkinen, K., & Ortega-Alonso, A. (2006). Exercise in waist-high warm water decreases pain and improves health-related quality of life and strength in the lower extremities in women with fibromyalgia. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 55(1), 66–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Aaronson, N. K., Cull, A. M., Kaasa, S., & Sprangers, M. A. (1996). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: An update. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 179–189). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.Google Scholar
- 17.Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423.Google Scholar
- 19.Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L. L., Nizam, A., & Muller, K. E. (2008). Testing for the equality of two correlations. In C. Crockett (Ed.), Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods (4th ed., pp. 103–104). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
- 20.Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley, John and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar