ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2016
A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Discrete choice experiments to generate utility values for multi-attribute utility instruments: a systematic review of methods.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Pooled it
- Cancer-specific or generic preference-based measures in oncology? A validity comparison across six commonly diagnosed cancers.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Comparison of the early childhood oral health impact scale (ECOHIS-4D) and EuroQol-5D-Y for measuring oral health-related quality of life utility in children.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Psychological Well-Being and Quality of Life in Laryngeal Cancer Patients across Tumor.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- A scoping review to create a framework for the steps in developing condition-specific preference-based instruments de novo or from an existing non-preference-based instrument: use of item response theory or Rasch analysis.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- Quality of Life of Cancer Patients during Chemotherapy in Indonesia: A Comparison of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5L, Based on Patients' Characteristics.International journal of clinical practice · 2023Article
- Assessing the Quality of Life of Oral Submucous Fibrosis Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the WHOQOL-BREF Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Comparison of generic and condition-specific oral health-related quality of life instruments in patients with oral submucous fibrosis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and the SF-6D (SF-12) contemporaneous utility scores in patients with cardiovascular disease.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been suggested that the EQ-5D-3 L preference-based measure of health outcome lacks sensitivity to discriminate between health states in cancer patients. An alternative approach is to use a disease (cancer) specific preference-based measure, such as the EORTC-8D. A limited number of comparisons have been made between generic and disease specific preference-based measures. The aim of this study was to compare the utility scores from the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D in a group of patients with oral cancer or with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD).
methodsPatients (n = 151) with OPMD or oral cancer were recruited consecutively from six hospitals in Sri Lanka. All participants completed both the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC's QLQC-30 instrument. The Sri Lankan EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D scoring algorithms were employed to estimate utility scores. The utility scores from the two instruments were compared for discrimination, responsiveness and correlation.
resultsThere were significant differences across the two utility scores. The EQ-5D-3 L showed better discrimination than EORTC-8D with higher effect sizes. There were higher ceiling effects observed in the EQ-5D-3 L. There was poor correlation between the dimensions of the two instruments except for the mobility and physical functions.
conclusionThe two instruments captured different aspects of quality of life. The EQ-5D-3 L demonstrated better discrimination than the EORTC-8D. In mild conditions EORTC-8D was more responsive and we recommend further validation of this instrument in diverse cancer conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.