Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij Scalda & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Scalda heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen.Je kunt de producten hieronder links aanschaffen en rechts inloggen.

» Andere revante producten voor Scalda studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Schaf de BSL Academy aan: 

BSL Academy mbo AG

Eenmaal aangeschaft kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met Jan van der Velden.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

23-09-2020

A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients

Auteurs: Hongjuan Yu, Xueyun Zeng, Mingjie Sui, Rui Liu, Rachel Lee-Yin Tan, Jinjin Yang, Weidong Huang, Nan Luo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the measurement properties of EQ-5D-3L(3L) and EQ-5D-5L(5L) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in China.

Methods

We consecutively recruited 168 patients with AML from three tertiary hospitals to complete two rounds of interviews using the two versions of the EQ-5D. We compared (i) the ceiling effect using the McNemar’s test, (ii) test–retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen’s weighted Kappa, (iii) convergent validity using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (r) and iv) discriminatory ability using F statistic and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of the 5L and the 3L.

Results

The 5L descriptive system showed significantly lower ceiling effects in comparison to the 3L descriptive system (p < 0.001). While 5L showed superior reproducibility (Cohen’s weighted Kappa = 0.56–0.67 and ICC = 0.89), both instruments exhibited good test–retest reliability. Even though both 3L and 5L showed good convergent and known-groups validity, 5L showed better convergent validity and discriminatory ability.

Conclusion

The current study found both 3L and 5L to be suitable for use in AML patients. However, 5L showed superior measurement properties compared to 3L. Thus, 5L could be the preferred instrument over 3L for use in AML patients.
vorige artikel Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing
volgende artikel Obtaining EQ-5D-5L utilities from the disease specific quality of life Alzheimer’s disease scale: development and results from a mapping study
Literatuur
1.
Devlin, N. J., & Brooks, R. (2017 Apr). EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 15(2), 127–137.CrossRef
2.
Brooks, R. J. (1996). EuroQol: the current state of play. Healthy Policy, 37(1), 53–72.CrossRef
3.
Group TE. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 36, 199–208.
4.
5.
6.
Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. J. H. (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(1), 14.CrossRef
7.
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.CrossRef
8.
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlińska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2014). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1555–1263.CrossRef
9.
Poór, A. K., Rencz, F., Brodszky, V., Gulácsi, L., Beretzky, Z., Hidvégi, B., et al. (2016). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in psoriasis patients. Value in Health, 19(7), A572–A573.CrossRef
10.
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), 1727–1236.CrossRef
11.
Pickard, A. S., De Leon, M. C., Kohlmann, T., Cella, D., & Sarah, M. C. (2007). Psychometric comparison of the standard EQ-5D to a 5 level version in cancer patients. Rosenbloom, 45(3), 259–263.
12.
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.CrossRef
13.
Cheng, M. J., Hourigan, C. S., & Smith, T. J. (2014). Adult acute myeloid leukemia long-term survivors. Journal of Leukemia (Los Angel), 2, 2.
14.
van Dongen-Leunis, A., Redekop, W. K., & Uyl-de Groot, C. A. (2016). Which questionnaire should be used to measure quality-of-life utilities in patients with acute leukemia? An evaluation of the validity and interpretability of the EQ-5D-5L and preference-based questionnaires derived from the EORTC QLQ-C30. Value Health., 19(6), 834–843.CrossRef
15.
Liu, G. G., Wu, H., Li, M., Chen, G., & Nan, L. J. (2014). Chinese time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states. Value in Health, 17(5), 597–604.CrossRef
16.
Luo, N., Liu, G., Li, M., Guan, H., Jin, X., & Rand-Hendriksen, K. (2017 Apr). Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health, 20(4), 662–669.CrossRef
17.
Fairclough, D. L., & Cella, D. F. (1996). Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G): Non-response to individual questions. Quality of Life Research, 5(3), 321–329.CrossRef
18.
Yu, C. L., Fielding, R., Chan, C. L., Tse, V. K., Choi, P. H., Lau, W. H., et al. (2015). Measuring quality of life of Chinese cancer patients: A validation of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. Multicenter Study, 88(7), 1715–1727.
19.
Wan, C., Meng, Q., Tang, X., Zhang, C., Luo, J., & Zhang, X. (2006). Validation of cancer patient quality of life measurement scale FACT-G Chinese version. Journal of Practical Oncology, 21(1), 77–80.
20.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370.CrossRef
21.
Marziliano, A., Pessin, H., Rosenfeld, B., & Breitbart, W. (2018). Measuring cohesion and self-disclosure in psychotherapy groups for patients with advanced cancer: An analysis of the psychometric properties of the group therapy experience scale. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 68(3), 407–427.CrossRef
22.
Xiao, S. Y. (1994). The theoretical basis and research applications of “Social Support Rating Scale”. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 4(2), 98–100.
23.
Li, L., Liu, C., Cai, X., Yu, H., Zeng, X., Sui, M., et al. (2019 May 30). Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5 L in family caregivers of leukemia patients. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 522.CrossRef
24.
25.
Efficace, F., Rosti, G., Aaronson, N., Cottone, F., Angelucci, E., Molica, S., et al. (2014 Apr). Patient- versus physician-reporting of symptoms and health status in chronic myeloid leukemia. Haematologica, 99(4), 788–793.CrossRef
26.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007 Jan). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRef
27.
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 Health, 11(2), 275–284.CrossRef
28.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. London: Routledge.CrossRef
29.
Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2017 May). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. The European Journal of Health Economics, 18(4), 519–531.CrossRef
30.
Janssen, M. F., Bonsel, G. J., & Luo, N. (2018 Jun). 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.CrossRef
31.
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.CrossRef
32.
Pickard, A. S., Ray, S., Ganguli, A., & Cella, D. (2012). Comparison of FACT- and EQ-5D-based utility scores in cancer. Value Health, 15(2), 305–311.CrossRef
33.
Huang, I. C., Willke, R. J., Atkinson, M. J., Lenderking, W. R., Frangakis, C., & Wu, A. W. (2007). US and UK versions of the EQ-5D preference weights: does choice of preference weights make a difference? Quality of Life Research, 16(6), 1065–1072.CrossRef
34.
Hays, R. D., Anderson, R., & Revicki, D. (1993). Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Quality of Life Research., 2(6), 441–449.CrossRef
35.
Petrou, S., Morrell, J., & Spiby, H. (2009 May). Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes., 6(7), 40.CrossRef
36.
Petrou, S., & Hockley, C. (2005 Nov). An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Economics, 14(11), 1169–1189.CrossRef
37.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRef
38.
Rajmil LJJoE, Health C. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use, 3rd ed. 2015;47(5):484.e1-.e1.
39.
Schwenkglenks, M., & Matter-Walstra, K. (2016). Is the EQ-5D suitable for use in oncology? An overview of the literature and recent developments. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 16(2), 207–219.CrossRef
40.
Lang, H. C., Chuang, L., Shun, S. C., Hsieh, C. L., & Lan, C.-F. (2010). Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18(10), 1279–1286.CrossRef
41.
Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013 Sep). 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.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in acute myeloid leukemia patients
Auteurs
Hongjuan Yu
Xueyun Zeng
Mingjie Sui
Rui Liu
Rachel Lee-Yin Tan
Jinjin Yang
Weidong Huang
Nan Luo
Publicatiedatum
23-09-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02644-w

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Obtaining EQ-5D-5L utilities from the disease specific quality of life Alzheimer’s disease scale: development and results from a mapping study

  • Open Access

Executive dysfunction is associated with poorer health-related quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes: differences by sex

Feasibility and validity of EQ-5D-5L proxy by nurses in measuring health-related quality of life of nursing home residents

Reliability and validity of the 6-item Headache Impact Test in chronic migraine from the PROMISE-2 study

  • Open Access

A systematic review of health state utility values for thyroid cancer

  • Open Access
  • Review

The relationship between health-promoting lifestyles and depression in the elderly: roles of aging perceptions and social support