Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24233919›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2014

Validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the KIDSCREEN-10 in children with ADHD.

Clazien Bouwmans, Annemarie van der Kolk, Mark Oppe, Saskia Schawo, Elly Stolk, Michel van Agthoven, Jan Buitelaar, LeonaHakkaart van Roijen

Abstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Clazien Bouwmans
Annemarie van der Kolk
Mark Oppe
Saskia Schawo
Elly Stolk
Michel van Agthoven
Jan Buitelaar
LeonaHakkaart van Roijen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of our study is to compare the validity of a generic preference-based Quality of Life (QoL) instrument for adults to that of a generic child-specific QoL instrument in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

methodsEQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 data were collected using a questionnaire survey performed among parents with a child or adolescent diagnosed with ADHD. The measurements were compared to assess (dis)similarities of the instruments' constructs and responsiveness to different health states. Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to identify factors underlying the constructs of both instruments. Instruments' index scores of respondents with different treatment and comorbidity profiles were compared using Student's t tests. Cohen's effect sizes were calculated for an indirect comparison of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminating ability. Separate analyses were performed in children aged 8-12 and 13-18 years.

resultsA strong relation was found between the EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 index scores. However correlations between EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items were moderate or low. The PCA identified five separate factors of quality of life. A physical and a mental factor included a combination of three EQ-5D dimensions and six KIDSCREEN-10 items; the remaining EQ-5D and KIDSCREEN-10 items constituted complementary factors without any overlap between the separate instruments. Scores of both instruments differed significantly according to respondents' response to treatment and comorbidity profile. Cohen's effect sizes indicated comparable results of the instruments' responsiveness and discriminative ability.

conclusionsThe results highlight that the instruments measure different constructs of QoL in children with ADHD. Despite this, the analyses showed comparable responsiveness and discriminative ability of the instruments. These results suggest that for economic evaluations, the EQ-5D is an appropriate and valid instrument for measuring QoL in children.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityQuality of LifeAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID24233919

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.