Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke

Authors: Sang-Kyu Kim, Seon-Ha Kim, Min-Woo Jo, Sang-il Lee

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and to explore the responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D indices in stroke.

Methods

We used observational longitudinal survey data of EQ-5D and SF-36 that were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 10 months. A range of MIDs for both indexes was estimated using anchor-based approaches. The modified Rankin scale and the Barthel index were used as an anchor.

Results

The MID estimates for EQ-5D ranged from 0.08 to 0.12 and those for SF-6D ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 in stroke patients. The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index.

Conclusions

The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index. These MID estimates may assist the interpretation of health related quality of life assessments related to health care intervention in stroke patients.
Literature
1.
2.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Invest. 1993;11:327–36.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD. A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19:155–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Salter KL, Moses MB, Foley NC, Teasell RW. Health-related quality of life after stroke: what are we measuring? Int J Rehabil Res. 2008;31:111–7.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:172–91.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
8.
Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, Yount SE, Peterman AH, Neuberg DS, et al. A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:898–910.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD. 2005;2(1):63–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Liang MH. Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care. 2000;38:II84–90.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care. 1998;36:491–502.CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28–36.CrossRefPubMed
14.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
15.
EuroQol. a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.CrossRef
16.
Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22:235–41.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish M. Concepts, Measures, and application. In: User’s Manual for the SF-36v2® Health Survey. Lincoln RI: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2007. p. 13–24.
18.
Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1523–32.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:207–19.CrossRefPubMed
20.
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;87:330–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al. South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health. 2009;12:1187–93.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999;30:1538–41.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Kim SY, Won CW, Rho YG. The Validity and Reliability of Korean Version of Bathel ADL Index. J Korean Acad Fam Med. 2004;25:534–41.
25.
Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):61–3.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Kim SH, Hwang JS, Kim TW, Hong YS, Jo MW. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D for cancer patients in Korea. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20(12):3155–60.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lee WJ, Song KH, Noh JH, Choi YJ, Jo MW. Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. J Korean Med Sci. 2012;27(3):255–60.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
28.
Kim MH, Cho YS, Uhm WS, Kim S, Bae SC. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1401–6.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Han CW, Lee EJ, Iwaya T, Kataoka H, Kohzuki M. Development of the Korean version of Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey: health related QOL of healthy elderly people and elderly patients in Korea. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2004;203:189–94.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–89.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA. Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum. 1985;28:542–7.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Cohen J. The t-test for means. In: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988. p. 19–74.
33.
D’Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH. A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke. 1996;27:2331–6.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, Feeny D, Ganiats TG, Palta M, et al. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:497–506.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
35.
Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, Liu H, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM, et al. Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):273–86.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
36.
Hartigan I, O’Mahony D. The Barthel Index: comparing inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors in an older adult rehabilitation unit. Appl Nurs Res. 2011;24(1):e1–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke
Authors
Sang-Kyu Kim
Seon-Ha Kim
Min-Woo Jo
Sang-il Lee
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research Article

Quantifying the importance of disease burden on perceived general health and depressive symptoms in patients within the Mayo Clinic Biobank

Research Article

Recovery from musculoskeletal injury: the role of social support following a transport accident

Study Protocol

Research protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the health effects of volunteering for seniors

Research

Adolescent self-report and parent proxy-report of health-related quality of life: an analysis of validity and reliability of PedsQL™ 4.0 among a sample of Malaysian adolescents and their parents

Research

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire: application in a sample of short-term survivors

Research Article

Influence of frailty on health-related quality of life in pre-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease in Korea: a cross-sectional study