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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 11/2015

01-11-2015 | Systematic Review

Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review

Authors: Nalin Payakachat, Mir M. Ali, J. Mick Tilford

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 11/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, Kamlet MS, Russell LB. Recommendations of the Panel on Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA. 1996;276(15):1253–8.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, Denton M, Boyle M. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–28.PubMedCrossRef
8.
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.
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.
11.
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
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).CrossRef
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].
15.
16.
Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, Patel S, Stavem K, Lee TA. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir Med. 2008;102(4):519–36.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Tordrup D, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to clinical change: is the patient experience adequately represented? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):10–9.PubMedCrossRef
18.
19.
Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation: a practical guide to analysis and interpretation. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.CrossRef
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.
21.
22.
23.
Günther OH, Roick C, Angermeyer MC, König HH. Responsiveness of EQ-5D utility indices in alcohol-dependent patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;92(1–3):291–5.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Essex HN, White IR, Khadjesari Z, Linke S, McCambridge J, Murray E, Parrott S, Godfrey C. Quality of life among hazardous and harmful drinkers: EQ-5D over a 1-year follow-up period. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(2):733–43.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Papaioannou D, Brazier J, Parry G. How valid and responsive are generic health status measures, such as EQ-5D and SF-36, in schizophrenia? A systematic review. Value Health. 2011;14(6):907–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
26.
Burton M, Walters SJ, Saleh M, Brazier JE. An evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures in lower limb reconstruction surgery. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(10):1731–43.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Yang Y, Longworth L, Brazier J. An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(10):2813–28.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
28.
Bouwmans C, van der Kolk A, Oppe M, Schawo S, Stolk E, van Agthoven M, Buitelaar J, van Roijen L. Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the KIDSCREEN-10 in children with ADHD. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(9):967–77.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Kiessling A, Henriksson P. Time trends of chest pain symptoms and health related quality of life in coronary artery disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Eurich DT, Johnson JA, Reid KJ, Spertus JA. Assessing responsiveness of generic and specific health related quality of life measures in heart failure. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:89.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, Feeny D, Ganiats TG, Palta M, Fryback DG. Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(5):497–506.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
33.
Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):207–19.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hunger M, Sabariego C, Stollenwerk B, Cieza A, Leidl R. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(7):1205–16.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Nosyk B, Sun H, Guh DP, Oviedo-Joekes E, Marsh DC, Brissette S, Schechter MT, Anis AH. The quality of eight health status measures were compared for chronic opioid dependence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(10):1132–44.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Mulhern B, Mukuria C, Barkham M, Knapp M, Byford S, Soeteman D, Brazier J. Using generic preference-based measures in mental health: psychometric validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(3):236–43.PubMedCrossRef
37.
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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
Brettschneider C, König HH, Herzog W, Kaufmann C, Schaefert R, Konnopka A. Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in assessing and valuing health status in patients with somatoform disorders. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gaujoux-Viala C, Rat AC, Guillemin F, Flipo RM, Fardellone P, Bourgeois P, Fautrel B. Responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with early arthritis: results from the ESPOIR cohort. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(9):1478–83.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Hurst NP, Kind P, Ruta D, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis: validity, responsiveness and reliability of EuroQol (EQ-5D). Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36(5):551–9.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Eversden L, Maggs F, Nightingale P, Jobanputra P. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of hydrotherapy and land exercises on overall well being and quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2007;8:23.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
45.
Linde L, Sørensen J, Ostergaard M, Hørslev-Petersen K, Hetland ML. Health-related quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, 15D, EQ-5D [corrected] RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(8):1528–37.PubMed
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.CrossRef
47.
Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Dziedzic K, Dawes PT. Generic measures of health-related quality of life in ankylosing spondylitis: reliability, validity and responsiveness. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2002;41(12):1380–7.CrossRef
48.
Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41(7):791–801.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Oga T, Nishimura K, Tsukino M, Sato S, Hajiro T, Mishima M. A comparison of the responsiveness of different generic health status measures in patients with asthma. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(5):555–63.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Petrillo J, van Nooten F, Jones P, Rutten-van Mölken M. Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preference for change? Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(11):917–32.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
53.
MacDonagh RP, Cliff AM, Speakman MJ, O’Boyle PJ, Ewings P, Gudex C. The use of generic measures of health-related quality of life in the assessment of outcome from transurethral resection of the prostate. Br J Urol. 1997;79(3):401–8.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Krahn M, Bremner KE, Tomlinson G, Ritvo P, Irvine J, Naglie G. Responsiveness of disease-specific and generic utility instruments in prostate cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(3):509–22.PubMedCrossRef
55.
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.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Krabbe PF, Peerenboom L, Langenhoff BS, Ruers TJ. Responsiveness of the generic EQ-5D summary measure compared to the disease-specific EORTC QLQ C-30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(7):1247–53.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
59.
60.
Kunz S. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D in a study of people with mild to moderate dementia. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(3):425–34.PubMedCrossRef
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.CrossRef
62.
Luo N, Ng WY, Lau PN, Au WL, Tan LC. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):565–9.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Schrag A, Spottke A, Quinn NP, Dodel R. Comparative responsiveness of Parkinson’s disease scales to change over time. Mov Disord. 2009;24(6):813–8.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Langfitt JT, Vickrey BG, McDermott MP, Messing S, Berg AT, Spencer SS, Sperling MR, Bazil CW, Shinnar S. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(5):899–914.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Janssen MF, Lubetkin EI, Sekhobo JP, Pickard AS. The use of the EQ-5D preference-based health status measure in adults with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2011;28(4):395–413.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Riazi A, Cano SJ, Cooper JM, Bradley JL, Schapira AH, Hobart JC. Coordinating outcomes measurement in ataxia research: do some widely used generic rating scales tick the boxes? Mov Disord. 2006;21(9):1396–403.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring outcomes after surgery for adult Chiari I malformation: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(5):820–7 discussion 827.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Sagberg LM, Jakola AS, Solheim O. Quality of life assessed with EQ-5D in patients undergoing glioma surgery: what is the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference? Qual Life Res. 2014;23(5):1427–34.PubMedCrossRef
69.
70.
Tidermark J, Bergström G, Svensson O, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(8):1069–79.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Tidermark J, Bergström G. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) in elderly patients with femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(2):321–30.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Frihagen F, Grotle M, Madsen JE, Wyller TB, Mowinckel P, Nordsletten L. Outcome after femoral neck fractures: a comparison of Harris Hip Score, Eq-5d and Barthel Index. Injury. 2008;39(10):1147–56.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of cervical spine surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2013;. doi:10.​1016/​j.​spinee.​2013.​07.​444.
74.
Olerud P, Tidermark J, Ponzer S, Ahrengart L, Bergström G. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in patients with proximal humeral fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(8):1200–6.PubMedCrossRef
75.
76.
Zampelis V, Ornstein E, Franzén H, Atroshi I. A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2014;85(2):128–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
77.
Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86(6):801–8.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Goodwin PC, Ratcliffe J, Morris J, Morrissey MC. Using the knee-specific Hughston Clinic Questionnaire, EQ-5D and SF-6D following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy surgery: a comparison of psychometric properties. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(9):1437–46.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Lin FJ, Samp J, Munoz A, Wong PS, Pickard AS. Evaluating change using patient-reported outcome measures in knee replacement: the complementary nature of the EQ-5D index and VAS scores. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(5):489–96.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38(9):870–7.CrossRef
81.
Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartil. 2014;22(2):184–9.CrossRef
82.
Dawson J, Boller I, Doll H, Lavis G, Sharp R, Cooke P, Jenkinson C. Responsiveness of the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS, SF-36 and EQ-5D assessments following foot or ankle surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br. 2012;94(2):215–21.CrossRef
83.
84.
DeVine J, Norvell DC, Ecker E, Fourney DR, Vaccaro A, Wang J, Andersson G. Evaluating the correlation and responsiveness of patient-reported pain with function and quality-of-life outcomes after spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21 Suppl):S69–74.CrossRef
85.
Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, Glassman SD, McGirt MJ. Accurately measuring the quality and effectiveness of lumbar surgery in registry efforts: determining the most valid and responsive instruments. Spine J. 2014;14(12):2885–91.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Solberg T, Johnsen LG, Nygaard ØP, Grotle M. Can we define success criteria for lumbar disc surgery? Estimates for a substantial amount of improvement in core outcome measures. Acta Orthop. 2013;84(2):196–201.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
87.
Staerkle RF, Villiger P. Simple questionnaire for assessing core outcomes in inguinal hernia repair. Br J Surg. 2011;98(1):148–55.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Lee L, Mata J, Augustin BR, Carli F, Morin N, Latimer E, Feldman LS. A comparison of the validity of two indirect utility instruments as measures of postoperative recovery. J Surg Res. 2014;190(1):79–86.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Tosh J, Brazier J, Evans P, Longworth L. A review of generic preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in visual disorders. Value Health. 2012;15(1):118–27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
90.
Ang M, Fenwick E, Wong TY, Lamoureux E, Luo N. Utility of EQ-5D to assess patients undergoing cataract surgery. Optom Vis Sci. 2013;90(8):861–6.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Maes IH, Joore MA, Cima RF, Vlaeyen JW, Anteunis LJ. Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: a comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III. Ear Hear. 2011;32(4):428–35.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Wu AW, Hanson KA, Harding G, Haider S, Tawadrous M, Khachatryan A, Pashos CL, Simpson KN. Responsiveness of the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapies. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;. doi:10.​1186/​1477-7525-11-42.
94.
König HH, Ulshöfer A, Gregor M, von Tirpitz C, Reinshagen M, Adler G, Leidl R. Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;14(11):1205–15.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Stark RG, Reitmeir P, Leidl R, König HH. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in inflammatory bowel disease in Germany. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010;16(1):42–51.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Bushnell DM, Martin ML, Ricci JF, Bracco A. Performance of the EQ-5D in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Value Health. 2006;9(2):90–7.PubMedCrossRef
97.
98.
99.
Chapman JR, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Bransford RJ, DeVine J, McGirt MJ, Lee MJ. Evaluating common outcomes for measuring treatment success for chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21 Suppl1):S54–68.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
101.
Soer R, Reneman MF, Speijer BL, Coppes MH, Vroomen PC. Clinimetric properties of the EuroQol-5D in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2012;12(11):1035–9.PubMedCrossRef
102.
Aggarwal R, Wilke CT, Pickard AS, Vats V, Mikolaitis R, Fogg L, Block JA, Jolly M. Psychometric properties of the EuroQol-5D and Short Form-6D in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2009;36(6):1209–16.PubMedCrossRef
103.
Coast J, Peters TJ, Richards SH, Gunnell DJ. Use of the EuroQoL among elderly acute care patients. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(1):1–10.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Holland R, Smith RD, Harvey I, Swift L, Lenaghan E. Assessing quality of life in the elderly: a direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Econ. 2004;13(8):793–805.PubMedCrossRef
105.
The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: A European perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
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.
107.
Coons SJ, Rao S, Keininger DL, Hays RD. A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(1):13–35.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S217–32 Review.PubMedCrossRef
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].
111.
Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:70.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
112.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Measuring change. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, editors. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 277–97.CrossRef
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.
114.
Gerhards SA, Huibers MJ, Theunissen KA, de Graaf LE, Widdershoven GA, Evers SM. The responsiveness of quality of life utilities to change in depression: a comparison of instruments (SF-6D, EQ-5D, and DFD). Value Health. 2011;14(5):732–9.PubMedCrossRef
115.
Lazarus RS. Coping theory and research: past, present, and future. Psychosom Med. 1993;55(3):234–47.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer; 1984.
117.
Roesch SC, Adams L, Hines A, Palmores A, Vyas P, Tran C, Pekin S, Vaughn AA. Coping with prostate cancer: a meta-analytic review. J Behav Med. 2005;28(3):281–93.PubMedCrossRef
118.
Wonghongkul T, Dechaprom N, Phumivichuvate L, Losawatkul S. Uncertainty appraisal coping and quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs. 2006;29(3):250–7.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Can The EQ-5D Detect Meaningful Change? A Systematic Review
Authors
Nalin Payakachat
Mir M. Ali
J. Mick Tilford
Publication date
01-11-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 11/2015
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-015-0295-6

Other articles of this Issue 11/2015

PharmacoEconomics 11/2015 Go to the issue

Systematic Review

Cost Effectiveness of Chemotherapeutic Agents and Targeted Biologics in Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review

Current Opinion

Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?

Systematic Review

Assessing the Economics of Dengue: Results from a Systematic Review of the Literature and Expert Survey

Original Research Article

Evaluating the Generalisability of Trial Results: Introducing a Centre- and Trial-Level Generalisability Index

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness of an Individualized First-Line Treatment Strategy Offering Erlotinib Based on EGFR Mutation Testing in Advanced Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients in Germany

Review Article

Sipuleucel-T for the Treatment of Metastatic Hormone-Relapsed Prostate Cancer: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal; An Evidence Review Group Perspective