Top

Quality of Life Research

Published in:

Open Access 01-06-2015

Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients

Authors: Dominik Golicki, Maciej Niewada, Anna Karlińska, Julia Buczek, Adam Kobayashi, M. F. Janssen, A. Simon Pickard

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 6/2015

Abstract

Aims

To date, evidence to support the construct validity of the EQ-5D-5L has primarily focused on cross-sectional data. The aims of this study were to examine the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L in patients with stroke and to compare it with responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L and visual analogue scale (EQ VAS).

Methods

We performed an observational longitudinal cohort study of patients with stroke. At 1 week and 4 months post-stroke, patients were assessed with modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel Index (BI) and were administered the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L, including the EQ VAS. The EQ-5D-5L index scores were derived using the crosswalk methodology developed by the EuroQol Group. We classified patients according to two external criteria, based on mRS or BI, into 3 categories: ‘improvement,’ ‘stable’ or ‘deterioration’. We assessed the responsiveness of each measure in each patient subgroup using: effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), F-statistic, relative efficiency and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

Results

A total of 112 patients (52 % females; mean age 70.6 years; 93 % ischemic stroke) completed all the instruments at both occasions. In subjects with clinical improvement, EQ-5D-5L was consistently responsive, showing moderate ES (0.51–0.71) and moderate to large SRM (0.69–0.86). In general, EQ-5D-3L index appeared to be more responsive (ES 0.63–0.82; SRM 0.77–1.06) and EQ VAS less responsive (ES 0.51–0.65; SRM 0.59–0.69) than EQ-5D-5L index.

Conclusions

The EQ-5D-5L index, based on the crosswalk value set, seems to be appropriately responsive in patients with stroke, 4 months after disease onset. As far as EQ-5D-5L index is scored according to crosswalk approach, the EQ-5D-3L index appears to be more responsive in stroke population.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.PubMedCrossRef

Oemar, M., Oppe, M. (2013). EQ-5D-3L User guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. EuroQol Group. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-3L_UserGuide_2013_v5.0_October_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2014.

Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., Walters, M. R., & Lees, K. R. (2009). Functional outcome measures in contemporary stroke trials. International Journal of Stroke, 4(3), 200–205. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4949.2009.00271.x.PubMedCrossRef

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Oemar, M., Janssen, B. (2013). EQ-5D-5L User guide. Basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. EuroQol Group. http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/UserGuide_EQ-5D-5L_v2.0_October_2013.pdf. Accessed 12 April 2014.

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Hinz, A., Kohlmann, T., Stobel-Richter, Y., Zenger, M., & Brahler, E. (2014). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 443–447. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0498-2.PubMedCrossRef

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0318-0.PubMedCrossRef

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,. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.PubMed

10.

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. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0018-1.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lee, C. F., Luo, N., Ng, R., Wong, N. S., Yap, Y. S., Lo, S. K., et al. (2013). 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. Quality of Life Research, 22(7), 1745–1751. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0291-7.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Glossary. (2000). Health outcomes methodology. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl II): II7–II13.

13.

van Swieten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. J., & van Gijn, J. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke, 19(5), 604–607.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Mahoney, F. I., & Barthel, D. W. (1965). Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Maryland State Medical Journal, 14, 61–65.PubMed

15.

Dromerick, A. W., Edwards, D. F., & Diringer, M. N. (2003). Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: A comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40(1), 1–8.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Quinn, T. J., Langhorne, P., & Stott, D. J. (2011). Barthel index for stroke trials: development, properties, and application. Stroke, 42(4), 1146–1151. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.110.598540.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hunger, M., Sabariego, C., Stollenwerk, B., Cieza, A., & Leidl, R. (2012). Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in German stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1205–1216. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0024-3.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Golicki, D., Jakubczyk, M., Niewada, M., Wrona, W., & Busschbach, J. J. (2010). Valuation of EQ-5D health states in Poland: First TTO-based social value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value Health, 13(2), 289–297. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00596.x.PubMedCrossRef

19.

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 Health, 15(5), 708–715. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., van Hout, B., Janssen, M. F., & Pickard, A. S. (2014). Interim eq-5d-5l value set for Poland: First crosswalk value set in Central and Eastern Europe. Value in Health Regional Issues, 4C, 19–23.CrossRef

21.

Liang, M. H. (2000). Longitudinal construct validity: Establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Medical Care, 38(9 Suppl), i84–i90.

22.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., & Symonds, T. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 285–295.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Huybrechts, K. F., & Caro, J. J. (2007). The Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale as prognostic tools for long-term outcomes after stroke: A qualitative review of the literature. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 23(7), 1627–1636. doi:10.1185/030079907x210444.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Hsieh, Y. W., Wang, C. H., Wu, S. C., Chen, P. C., Sheu, C. F., & Hsieh, C. L. (2007). Establishing the minimal clinically important difference of the Barthel Index in stroke patients. Neurorehabilation and Neural Repair, 21(3), 233–238. doi:10.1177/1545968306294729.CrossRef

26.

Juniper, E. F., Guyatt, G. H., & Jaeschke, R. (1996). Chapter 6: How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed., pp. 49–56). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.

27.

Deyo, R. A., Diehr, P., & Patrick, D. L. (1991). Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clinical Trials, 12(4 Suppl), 142s–158s.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: L.E. Associates.

29.

Beaton, D. E., Hogg-Johnson, S., & Bombardier, C. (1997). Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 50(1), 79–93.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Deyo, R. A., & Centor, R. M. (1986). Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: An analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 39(11), 897–906.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143(1), 29–36. doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747.PubMedCrossRef

32.

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.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Devlin, N. J., & Krabbe, P. F. (2013). The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. The European Journal of Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), S1–S3. doi:10.1007/s10198-013-0502-3.PubMedCrossRef

34.

Oppe, M., Devlin, N. J., van Hout, B., Krabbe, P. F., & de Charro, F. (2014). A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value in Health, 17(4), 445–453. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2014.04.002.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Pickard, A. S., Johnson, J. A., & Feeny, D. H. (2005). Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 14(1), 207–219.PubMedCrossRef

36.

Quinn, T. J., Dawson, J., Walters, M. R., & Lees, K. R. (2009). Reliability of the modified Rankin Scale: A systematic review. Stroke, 40(10), 3393–3395. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.109.557256.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Quinn, T. J., Lees, K. R., Hardemark, H. G., Dawson, J., & Walters, M. R. (2007). Initial experience of a digital training resource for modified Rankin scale assessment in clinical trials. Stroke, 38(8), 2257–2261. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.106.480723.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Wilson, J. T., Hareendran, A., Grant, M., Baird, T., Schulz, U. G., Muir, K. W., et al. (2002). Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: Use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin Scale. Stroke, 33(9), 2243–2246.PubMedCrossRef

39.

Ali, M., Fulton, R., Quinn, T., & Brady, M. (2013). How well do standard stroke outcome measures reflect quality of life? A retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Stroke, 44(11), 3161–3165. doi:10.1161/strokeaha.113.001126.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Swan, J. S., Hur, C., Lee, P., Motazedi, T., & Donelan, K. (2013). Responsiveness of the testing morbidities index in colonoscopy. Value Health, 16(6), 1046–1053. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2013.07.008.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients
Authors: Dominik Golicki
Maciej Niewada
Anna Karlińska
Julia Buczek
Adam Kobayashi
M. F. Janssen
A. Simon Pickard
Publication date: 01-06-2015
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Quality of Life Research / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Integrating health-related quality of life findings from randomized clinical trials into practice: an international study of oncologists’ perspectives

The Dutch Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI): a reliability and validation study

The emotional distress of children with cancer in China: an item response analysis of C-Ped-PROMIS Anxiety and Depression short forms

Reexamining epilepsy-associated stigma: validation of the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy in Zambia

Strategies to improve success of pediatric cancer cooperative group quality of life studies: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group

Population norms for the EQ-5D index scores using Singapore preference weights