Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29476363›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.

Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 61 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Psychometric assessment of EQ-5D-5L and ReQoL measures in patients with anxiety and depression: construct validity and responsiveness.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, 1-59 Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. Brendan.mulhern@chere.uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3656-8063
Yan FengOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Koonal ShahOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Mathieu F JanssenDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael HerdmanOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Ben van HoutHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent St, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Nancy DevlinOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets' characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences.

objectiveThe aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets.

methodsWe carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L.

resultsThe distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order.

conclusionsThere are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.

Indexed as

Health StatusReference ValuesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29476363
PMCPMC5954043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.