Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27711169›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Chinese Version of the EQ-5D Preference Weights: Applicability in a Chinese General Population.

Chunmei Wu, Yanhong Gong, Jiang Wu, Shengchao Zhang, Xiaoxv Yin, Xiaoxin Dong, Wenzhen Li, Shiyi Cao, Naomie Mkandawire, Zuxun Lu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors.

Chunmei WuSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Yanhong GongSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Jiang WuXixiang Management Center of Community Health Service, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
Shengchao ZhangXixiang Management Center of Community Health Service, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
Xiaoxv YinSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Xiaoxin DongNingbo College of Health Sciences, Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, China.
Wenzhen LiSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Shiyi CaoSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Naomie MkandawireSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Zuxun LuSchool of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to test the reliability, validity and sensitivity of Chinese version of the EQ-5D preference weights in Chinese general people, examine the differences between the China value set and the UK, Japan and Korea value sets, and provide methods for evaluating and comparing the EQ-5D value sets of different countries.

methodsA random sample of 2984 community residents (15 years or older) were interviewed using a questionnaire including the EQ-5D scale. Level of agreement, convergent validity, known-groups validity and sensitivity of the EQ-5D China, United Kingdom (UK), Japan and Korea value sets were determined.

resultsThe mean EQ-5D index scores were significantly (P<0.05) different among the UK (0.964), Japan (0.981), Korea (0.987), and China (0.985) weights. High level of agreement (intraclass correlations coefficients > 0.75) and convergent validity (Pearson's correlation coefficients > 0.95) were found between each paired schemes. The EQ-5D index scores discriminated equally well for the four versions between levels of 10 known-groups (P< 0.05). The effect size and the relative efficiency statistics showed that the China weights had better sensitivity.

conclusionsThe China EQ-5D preference weights show equivalent psychometric properties with those from the UK, Japan and Korea weights while slightly more sensitive to known group differences than those from the Japan and Korea weights. Considering both psychometric and sociocultural issues, the China scheme should be a priority as an EQ-5D based measure of the health related quality of life in Chinese general population.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAsian PeopleBody WeightChinaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicJapanMaleMiddle AgedRepublic of KoreaSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27711169
PMCPMC5053600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.