Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to compare the measurement properties of two versions of EQ-5D (i.e.EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in hypertensive patients in rural China.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey was carried out in hypertensive patients in rural China. We compared the ceiling effects, redistribution properties, informativity, known-groups validity, and relative efficiency of the 3L and 5L and examined their agreement.
Results
A total of 11,412 patients were enrolled in our study. The mean EQ-5D index score was 0.84 (SD 0.21) according to the 5L and 0.86 (SD 0.17) according to the 3L. A good agreement was observed between the 3L and 5L. The overall ceiling effect decreased from 46.4% (3L) to 29.4% (5L). The Shannon index, H′ improved in all dimensions when used 5L. When used 3L, the median responses of all groups were consistent with 5L across the three dimensions of ‘mobility’, ‘self-care’, ‘usual activities’, while the median responses were inconsistent for the ‘pain/discomfort’ and ‘anxiety/depression’ dimensions. The 3L performed better in eight comorbidities in terms of F-statistics and six comorbidities in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). The 5L performed better both in terms of the F-statistics and AUROCs in age, education level, anti-hypertensive medication use.
Conclusion
Taking all comparisons into account, we recommend the EQ-5D-5L for use in patients with hypertension in rural China.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Manuscript is approved by all authors for publication.
Software application
Microsoft Word 2010.
References
Christell, H., Birch, S., Horner, K., Lindh, C., & Rohlin, M. (2014). Economic evaluation of diagnostic methods used in dentistry A systematic review. Journal of Dentistry, 42(11), 1361–1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.07.018.
Earnshaw, J., & Lewis, G. (2008). NICE guide to the methods of technology appraisal. PharmacoEconomics, 26(9), 725–727. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200826090-00002.
Cleemput, I., Neyt, M., Van de Sande, S., & Thiry, N. (2012). Belgian guidelines for economic evaluations and budget impact analyses (2nd ed.). Brussels: KCE = Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg = Centre Fédéral d'Expertise des Soins de Santé = Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre. Retrieved January, 22 2017.
Rencz, F., Gulacsi, L., Drummond, M., Golicki, D., Prevolnik Rupel, V., Simon, J., et al. (2016). EQ-5D in Central and Eastern Europe: 2000–2015. Quality of Life Research, 25(11), 2693–2710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1375-6.
Rowen, D., Azzabi Zouraq, I., Chevrou-Severac, H., & van Hout, B. (2017). International regulations and recommendations for utility data for health technology assessment. PharmacoEconomics, 35(Suppl 1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-017-0544-y.
Sanders, G. D., Neumann, P. J., Basu, A., Brock, D. W., Feeny, D., Krahn, M., et al. (2016). Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA, 316(10), 1093–1103. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12195.
Massetti, M., Aballea, S., Videau, Y., Remuzat, C., Roiz, J., & Toumi, M. (2015). A comparison of HAS and NICE guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies in the context of their respective national health care systems and cultural environments. Journal of Market Access and Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.3402/jmahp.v3.24966.
Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQoL: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.
EuroQoL. (1990). EuroQoL—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.
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 in Health, 15(5), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.
Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13(9), 873–884. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866.
Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38(1), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200001000-00013.
Kopec, J. A., & Willison, K. D. (2003). A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00609-1.
Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., Feeny, D., & Coons, S. J. (2005). Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Medical Care, 43(11), 1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000182493.57090.c1.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.
Luo, N., Li, M., Liu, G. G., Lloyd, A., de Charro, F., & Herdman, M. (2013). Developing the Chinese version of the new 5-level EQ-5D descriptive system: The response scaling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22(4), 885–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0200-0.
Wang, H., Kindig, D. A., & Mullahy, J. (2005). Variation in Chinese population health related quality of life: Results from a EuroQoL study in Beijing, China. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0612-6.
Li, L., Liu, C., Cai, X., Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., et al. (2019). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5L in family caregivers of leukemia patients. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 522. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5721-2.
Xia, J., Wu, N. W., Ma, T. P., Yu, C., & Li, N. X. (2020). Evaluation of reliability and validity of EQ-5D-5L based on residents in southwest China. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 51(5), 691–694. https://doi.org/10.12182/20200960504.
Fang, H., Farooq, U., Wang, D., Yu, F., Younus, M. I., & Guo, X. (2016). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-3L for Kashin-Beck disease in China. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1924. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3613-3.
Chang, T. J., Tarn, Y. H., Hsieh, C. L., Liou, W. S., Shaw, J. W., & Chiou, X. G. (2007). Taiwanese version of the EQ-5D: Validation in a representative sample of the Taiwanese population. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(12), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6646(08)60078-9.
Cheung, P. W. H., Wong, C. K. H., Samartzis, D., Luk, K. D. K., Lam, C. L. K., Cheung, K. M. C., et al. (2016). Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, 11, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-016-0083-x.
Wang, H. M., Patrick, D. L., Edwards, T. C., Skalicky, A. M., Zeng, H. Y., & Gu, W. W. (2012). Validation of the EQ-5D in a general population sample in urban China. Quality of Life Research, 21(1), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9915-6.
Tamási, B., Brodszky, V., Péntek, M., Gulácsi, L., Hajdu, K., Sárdy, M., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D in patients with pemphigus vulgaris and pemphigus foliaceus. British Journal of Dermatology, 180(4), 802–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16883.
Qi, S. F., Zhang, B., Wang, H. J., Yan, J., Mi, Y. J., Liu, D. W., et al. (2016). Prevalence of hypertension subtypes in 2011 and the trends from 1991 to 2011 among Chinese adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 70(5), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-206492.
Kearney, P. M., Whelton, M., Reynolds, K., Muntner, P., Whelton, P. K., & He, J. (2005). Global burden of hypertension: Analysis of worldwide data. Lancet, 365(9455), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1.
Ramahi, T. M. (2010). Cardiovascular disease in the Asia Middle East region: Global trends and local implications. Asia–Pacific Journal of Public Health, 22(3 Suppl), 83S-89S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539510373034.
Wu, Y., Tang, W., Ding, X., Mao, D., Chen, L., & Jiao, Y. (2019). Analysis of disease burden for hypertension and hypertensive heart or kidney complications in residents of Chongqing from 2012 to 2018. Chinese Journal of Prevention and Control of Chronic Diseases, 27(11), 818–821+826.
National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases. (2015). Report on Cardiovascular Disease in China 2014. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, China.
Lu, J., Lu, Y., Wang, X., Li, X., Linderman, G. C., Wu, C., et al. (2017). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from 1·7 million adults in a population-based screening study (China PEACE Million Persons Project). Lancet, 390(10112), 2549–2558. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32478-9.
Li, D., Lv, J., Liu, F., Liu, P., Yang, X., Feng, Y., et al. (2015). Hypertension burden and control in mainland China: Analysis of nationwide data 2003–2012. International Journal of Cardiology, 184, 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.03.045.
Su, M., Zhang, Q., Bai, X., Wu, C., Li, Y., Mossialos, E., et al. (2017). Availability, cost, and prescription patterns of antihypertensive medications in primary health care in China: A nationwide cross-sectional survey. Lancet, 390(10112), 2559–2568. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32476-5.
Wang, J. G. (2015). Chinese hypertension guidelines. Pulse (Basel), 3(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000382025.
Wu, Y., Huxley, R., Li, L., Anna, V., Xie, G., Yao, C., et al. (2008). Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in China: Data from the China National Nutrition and Health Survey 2002. Circulation, 118(25), 2679–2686. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.108.788166.
Wang, Z., Liu, R., Li, P., Jiang, C., & Hao, M. (2014). How to make diagnosis related groups payment more feasible in developing countries—A case study in Shanghai China. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 43(5), 572–578.
Martí-Pastor, M., Pont, A., Ávila, M., Garin, O., Vilagut, G., Forero, C. G., et al. (2018). Head-to-head comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in general population health surveys. Population Health Metrics, 16(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-018-0170-8.
Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1707–1716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.
Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21(6), 1065–1073. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.
Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0203-3.
Bilbao, A., García-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., García, I., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Trujillo-Martín, E., et al. (2018). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Quality of Life Research, 27(11), 2897–2908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x.
Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309(5), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-017-1743-2.
Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2017). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Quality of Life Research, 26(12), 3409–3419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1699-x.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.
Zhu, J., Yan, X. X., Liu, C. C., Wang, H., Wang, L., Cao, S. M., et al. (2020). Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: Suggestions for instrument choosing. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w.
Mulhern, B., Feng, Y., Shah, K., Janssen, M. F., Herdman, M., van Hout, B., et al. (2018). Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 699–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3.
Rabin, R., Oppe, O. M., Janssen, B., & Herdman, M. (2011). EQ-5D-5L user guide: Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Version 1.0. Rotterdam: EuroQoL Group.
Yang, F., Jiang, S., He, X. N., Li, H. C., Wu, H. Y., Zhang, T. T., et al. (2020). Do rural residents in China understand EQ-5D-5L as intended? Evidence from a qualitative study. Pharmacoeconomics Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-020-00212-z.
Liang, Z., Zhang, T., Lin, T., Liu, L., Wang, B., Fu, A. Z., et al. (2019). Health-related quality of life among rural men and women with hypertension: Assessment by the EQ-5D-5L in Jiangsu, China. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02139-3.
National Bureau of Statistics. Statistical bulletin on national economic and social development in 2018. https://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201902/t201902281651265.html.
Tabulation of the 2010 population census of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/6rp/indexch.htm.
Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., Haagsma, J. A., & Bonsel, G. J. (2008). Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value in Health, 11(2), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.
Sui, H., Wang, W., Chen, W., & Ma, L. (2015). Chinese guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community 2014. Journal of Hypertension, 33, E261–E261.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.
Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Gao, C., & Luo, N. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.05.007.
Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value in Health, 20(4), 662–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
Bas Janssen, M. F., Birnie, E., & Bonsel, G. J. (2007). Evaluating the discriminatory power of EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 in a US general population survey using Shannon’s indices. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9160-6.
Pan, C. W., Sun, H. P., Wang, X., Ma, Q., Xu, Y., Luo, N., et al. (2015). The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1767–1774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6.
Luo, N., Johnson, J. A., Shaw, J. W., & Coons, S. J. (2009). Relative efficiency of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores in measuring health burden of chronic medical conditions in a population health survey in the United States. Medical Care, 47(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817d92f8.
Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Genovese, B. J., Myers, L. W., & Ellison, G. W. (1997). Comparison of a generic to disease-targeted health-related quality-of-life measures for multiple sclerosis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(5), 557–569.
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: A nonparametric approach. Biometrics, 44(3), 837–845.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.
Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 284–290.
Hernandez Alava, M., Wailoo, A., Grimm, S., Pudney, S., Gomes, M., Sadique, Z., et al. (2018). EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: The impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value in Health, 21(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.004.
Yang, F., Devlin, N., & Luo, N. (2019). Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: Does how the utilities are derived matter? Value in Health, 22(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.05.008.
Buchholz, I., Janssen, M. F., Kohlmann, T., & Feng, Y. S. (2018). A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0642-5.
Feng, Y., Herdman, M., van Nooten, F., Cleeland, C., Parkin, D., Ikeda, S., et al. (2017). An exploration of differences between Japan and two European countries in the self-reporting and valuation of pain and discomfort on the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 26(8), 2067–2078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1541-5.
Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Rosenbloom, S. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Medical Care, 45(3), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000254515.63841.81.
Rencz, F., Lakatos, P. L., Gulácsi, L., Brodszky, V., Kürti, Z., Lovas, S., et al. (2019). Validity of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in patients with Crohn’s disease. Quality of Life Research, 28(1), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2003-4.
Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0807-0.
Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y. S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24(4), 829–835. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0838-x.
Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Gao, J., Wang, D., Zhang, Q., Zhou, Z., et al. (2016). Health-related quality of life and its influencing factors for patients with hypertension: Evidence from the urban and rural areas of Shaanxi Province, China. BMC Health Services Research, 16, 277. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1536-x.
Xu, R. H., Cheung, A. W. L., & Wong, E. L. (2017). Examining the health-related quality of life using EQ-5D-5L in patients with four kinds of chronic diseases from specialist outpatient clinics in Hong Kong SAR, China. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s143944.
Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Luo, N. (2018). Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.
Devlin, N., Brazier, J., Pickard, A. S., & Stolk, E. (2018). 3L, 5L, What the L? A NICE conundrum. PharmacoEconomics, 36(6), 637–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0622-9.
Rundgren, J., Enocson, A., Mellstrand Navarro, C., & Bergström, G. (2018). Responsiveness of EQ-5D in patients with a distal radius fracture. Hand (N Y), 13(5), 572–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717725378.
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlińska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.
Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., Liu, R., Tan, R. L., Yang, J., et al. (2020). A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-w.
Funding
We thank Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China (201704020198) and Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (2020A1515010990) for funding this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JJ, YH, TZ, ZY, TL, ZL, PL, LL, BW contributed to acquisition of data. JJ, YH, TZ analyzed, interpreted the data, draft and revise the manuscript. NL and YX contributed to conception, design and the interpretation of the results. All authors reviewed and approved the final version.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Biomedicine, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Informed consent
Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jiang, J., Hong, Y., Zhang, T. et al. Comparing the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in hypertensive patients living in rural China. Qual Life Res 30, 2045–2060 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02786-5