Top

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Back Pain | Research

A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain

Authors: Ziping Ye, Lihua Sun, Qi Wang

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

The comparative performance of the 3-level EuroQol 5-dimension and Short Form 6-dimension (SF-6D) has been investigated in patients with low back pain (LBP). The aim of this study was to explore the performance including agreement, convergent validity as well as known-groups validity of the 5-level EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5 L) and SF-6D in Chinese patients with LBP.

Methods

Individuals with LBP were recruited from a large tertiary hospital in China. All subjects were interviewed using a standardized questionnaire including the EQ-5D-5 L, 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Oswestry questionnaire and socio-demographic questions from June 2017 to October 2017. Agreement was evaluated by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were applied to assess convergent validity. For known-groups validity, the Mann–Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test were used, effect size (ES) and relative efficiency (RE) were also reported. The efficiency of detecting clinically relevant differences was measured by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves between pre-specified groups based on Oswestry disability index (ODI), ES and RE statistics were also reported.

Results

Two hundred seventy-two LBP patients (age 38.1, 38% female) took part in the study. Agreement between the EQ-5D-5 L and the SF-6D was good (ICC 0.661) but with systematic discrepancy in the Bland–Altman plots. In terms of convergent validity, most priori assumptions were more related to EQ-5D-5 L than SF-6D, but MCS derived from SF-36 was more associated with SF-6D. EQ-5D-5 L demonstrated better performance for most groups except location and general health grouped by the general assessment of health item from SF-36. Furthermore, when we applied ODI as external indicator of health status, the area under the ROC curve for EQ-5D-5 L was larger than that for the SF-6D (0.892, 95% CI 0.853 to 0.931 versus 0.822, 95% CI 0.771 to 0.873), the effect size was 0.63 for EQ-5D-5 L and 0.44 for SF-6D, and it was proved that EQ-5D-5 L was 42% more efficient than SF-6D at detecting differences measured by ODI.

Conclusions

Both EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D are valid measures for LBP patients. Even though these two measures had good agreement, they cannot be used interchangeably. The EQ-5D-5 L was superior to the SF-6D in Chinese low back pain patients in this research, with stronger correlation to ODI and better known-groups validity. Further study needs to evaluate other factors, such as responsiveness and reliability.

Taylor-Stokes G, Lobosco S, Pike J, et al. Relationship between patient-reported chronic low back pain severity and medication resources. Clin Ther. 2011;33(11):1739–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2011.09.026.CrossRefPubMed

Jin L, Jia M, Xu F. Prevalence of low back pain in Chinese nurses:a meta-analysis. Chin J Pract Nursing. 2013;29(20):45–7. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1672-7088.2013.20.016.CrossRef

Jin J, Han S, Li K. Epidemiological investigation of back pain and spondyloarthritis in Shougang resident communities. Chin J Intern Med. 2010;49(10):832–5. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2010.10.006.CrossRef

Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet. 1999;354(9178):581 doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)01312-4.CrossRef

Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, et al. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oup Catalogue. 2007;(1):6–12.

Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Russell LB, et al. Recommendations for reporting cost-effectiveness analyses. Panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Jama. 1996;276(16):1339.CrossRef

Räsänen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, et al. 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(2):235–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462306051051.CrossRefPubMed

Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

10.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(01)00130-8.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Mihalopoulos C, Chen G, Iezzi A, et al. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures. Br J Psychiatry. 2014;205(5):390–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.113.136036.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA, et al. Measuring the sensitivity and construct validity of 6 utility instruments in 7 disease areas. Medical Decision Making An Internation. 2015;36(2):147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15613522.CrossRef

13.

Campbell JA, Palmer AJ, Venn A, et al. A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments in patients who have previously undergone bariatric surgery. Patient-patient Centered Outcomes Research. 2016;9(4):311–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0157-5.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, et al. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):1019–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0664-7.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Søgaard R, Christensen FB, Videbaek TS, et al. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low Back pain. Value Health. 2009;12(4):606–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00466.x.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Johnsen LG, Christian H, Nygaard ØP, et al. Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(1):148. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, et al. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00230.x.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Ribeiro FP, et al. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-5D-5L in young Portuguese adults. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0491-x.CrossRef

19.

Kim TH, Jo MW, Lee SI, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(8):2245–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0331-3.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlińska A, et al. Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(6):1555–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Pan C, Sun H, Wang X, et al. The EQ-5D-5L index score is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L index score in diabetes patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(7):1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0902-6.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res Int J Qu. 2014;23(8):2355–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0670-3.CrossRef

23.

Walters SJ. Quality of life outcomes in clinical trials and health-care evaluation; 2009.CrossRef

24.

Carreon LY, Bratcher KR, Nienhuis J, et al. Estimating EQ-5D values from the Oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain. Spine. 2014;39(8):678–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.127.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Mcghee SM, Brazier J, Lam CLK, et al. Quality-adjusted life years: population-specific measurement of the quality component. Hong Kong Med J. 2011;17(Suppl 6(6):17–21.PubMed

26.

Ferreira LN, Ferreira PL, Pereira LN, et al. Exploring the consistency of the SF-6D. Value Health. 2013;16(6):1023–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.018.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Official website of QualityMetric: http://campaign.optum.com/optum-outcomes.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2018.

28.

Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy. 1980;66(8):271.PubMed

29.

Irmak R, Baltaci G, Ergun N. Long term test-retest reliability of Oswestry disability index in male office workers. Work. 2016;53(3). https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152234.CrossRef

30.

Yates M, Shastri-Hurst N. The Oswestry disability index. Occup Med. 2017;67(3):241–2.CrossRef

31.

Zheng G, Zhao X, Liu G, et al. Reliability of the modified Oswestry disability index for evaluating patients with low back pain. Chin J Spine Spinal Cord. 2002;12(1):13–5. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1004-406X.2002.01.004.CrossRef

32.

George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference[M]. London: Routledge; 2016.CrossRef

33.

Bland JM, Altman D. Statistical methods for ASSESSING agreement between two methods of clinical measurement [j]. Lancet. 1986;327(8476):307–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8.CrossRef

34.

Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–90.CrossRef

35.

Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochemia Medica. 2015;25(2):141. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Sakthong P, Munpan WA. Head-to-head comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L value sets in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Applied Health Economics & Health Policy. 2017;15:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-017-0320-3.CrossRef

37.

Dritsaki M, Petrou S, Williams M, et al. An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and Michigan hand outcome questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0584-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Pickard AS, Wilke C, Jung E, et al. Use of a preference-based measure of health (EQ-5D) in COPD and asthma. Respir Med. 2008;102(4):519–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2007.11.016.CrossRefPubMed

39.

de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, et al. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide[M]. London: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

40.

Delitto A, George SZ, Dillen LV, et al. Low Back pain: clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the Orthopaedic section of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(4):A1. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2012.42.4.A1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Tincello D, Sculpher M, Tunn R, et al. Patient characteristics impacting health state index scores, measured by the EQ-5D of females with stress urinary incontinence symptoms. Value Health. 2010;13(1):112–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00599.x.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, et al. Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socio-economic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(3):309–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9762-x.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, et al. Regional differences in health status in China: population health-related quality of life results from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Health & Place. 2011;17(2):671–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.01.007.CrossRef

44.

Sultana M, Sarker A R, Mahumud R A, et al. Inequalities in health status from EQ-5D findings: a cross-sectional study in low-income communities of Bangladesh. Int J Health Policy Manag, 2016(5(x)):301–308. doi: https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2016.06.CrossRef

45.

Yang M. Income,Income inequality and health status in rural China. Population & Economics. 2011.

46.

Barton GR, Sach TH, Avery AJ, et al. A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >or= 45 years. Health Econ. 2008;17(7):815–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1298.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Sheskin D J. Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures[M]. Cleveland: CRC Press; 2003.

48.

Tomczak M, Tomcak E. The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences. 2014.

49.

Drummond M. Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):344.CrossRef

50.

Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14(11):1169. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1006.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Sayah FA, Qiu W, Xie F, et al. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1559-8.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Montazeri A, Mousavi S J. Quality of Life and Low Back Pain. Handbook of Disease Burdens & Quality of Life Measures. 2010;3979–3994. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_232 CrossRef

53.

Wu J, Han Y, Zhao FL, et al. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-014-0156-6.CrossRef

54.

Zhao FL, Yue M, Yang H, et al. Validation and comparison of EuroQol and short form 6D in chronic prostatitis patients. Value Health. 2010;13(5):649–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00728.x.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.866.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Mcdonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1321–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-5743-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-12-74.CrossRef

58.

Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Davidson DT. Levin L Å. Is the societal approach wide enough to include relatives? Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2010;8(1):25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03256163.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-018-0623-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Lavrakas PJ. ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SURVEY RESEARCH METHODS. Bms bulletin of Sociol Methodol. 2008;24(98):83–4.

Title: A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain
Authors: Ziping Ye
Lihua Sun
Qi Wang
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Back Pain
Back Pain
Back Pain
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1137-6

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Japanese translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in Japanese social service users

Longitudinal assessment of utilities in patients with migraine: an analysis of erenumab randomized controlled trials

Health-related quality of life in undergraduate women using any contraceptive

Validation of the Italian version of the abbreviated expanded prostate Cancer index composite (EPIC-26) in men with prostate Cancer

A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between regulator quality ratings and care home residents’ quality of life in England

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the Vertigo symptom scale–short form in the central Kurdish dialect