Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25555837›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2015

Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement.

Barbara L Conner-Spady, Deborah A Marshall, Eric Bohm, Michael J Dunbar, Lynda Loucks, Ammar Al Khudairy, Tom W Noseworthy

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 102 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 5 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.

NCT02905097 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

Five Year Survival and Functional Assessment of the Triathlon Cementless Total Knee System Using the Tritanium Tibial Baseplate

TypeobservationalSponsorGolden Jubilee National HospitalRan2018 to 2024Enrolled100ConditionsArthritisArmsKnee Replacement
NCT06195423 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

The Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Type 1 Randomized Controlled Trial for Young People At-High-Risk of Early Onset Knee Osteoarthritis

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2024 to 2028Enrolled210ConditionsKnee Injuries, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture, Osteoarthritis, KneeArmsStop OsteoARthritis (SOAR) program, Living Well after ACLR program
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Psychometric properties comparison between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L in the general Thai population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Barbara L Conner-SpadyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3rd Floor, TRW Building, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada, bspady@telus.net.
Deborah A Marshall
Eric Bohm
Michael J Dunbar
Lynda Loucks
Ammar Al Khudairy
Tom W Noseworthy

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research ETG92252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the test-retest reliability of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) and compare the validity of the 5L and EQ-5D-3L (3L) in osteoarthritis patients referred to an orthopaedic surgeon for total joint replacement.

methodsWe mailed questionnaires to 306 consecutive patients following referral and a second questionnaire after 2 weeks to assess reliability. Questionnaires included the 5L, EQ-VAS, Short Form-12, Oxford hip and knee scores, pain VAS, and the 3L. We compared the ceiling effect, redistribution properties, convergent and discriminant validity, and discriminatory power of the 5L and 3L.

resultsWe obtained 176 respondents (response rate 58 %), 60 % female, 64 % knee patients, mean age 65 years (SD 11), with no significant differences between responders versus non-responders. Intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.61-0.77 for the 5L dimensions and 0.87 for the 5L index. For the 3L, most patients used level 2 (some/moderate problems) for mobility (87 %), usual activities (78 %), and pain/discomfort (71 %). In comparison, 5L responses were spread out with only 52, 42, and 50 %, respectively, using the middle level. All convergent validity coefficients were stronger with the 5L (Spearman coefficients 0.51-0.75). Absolute informativity (Shannon's index) showed higher results for all dimensions of the 5L compared with the 3L (average difference 0.74). Relative informativity (Shannon's evenness index) showed an increase from the 3L to the 5L in mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.

conclusionsThe 5L provided stronger validity evidence than the 3L, especially for dimensions relevant to this patient population-mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, HipOsteoarthritis, KneePainPain MeasurementPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID25555837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.