Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32930993›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2021

Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing.

Juan Zhu, Xin-Xin Yan, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Hong Wang, Le Wang, Su-Mei Cao, Xian-Zhen Liao, Yun-Feng Xi, Yong Ji, Lin Lei and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Impact of lung cancer diagnosis on patient lifestyle and physical activity.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Observational
  4. Caregivers' proxy assessments of health-related quality of life in patients with hematologic malignancies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Health related quality of life of patients with breast cancer in Malaysia: evidence from EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A comparison of descriptive systems and utility scores in patients with kidney chronic disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  8. Dynamic screening for anxiety and depression in patients undergoing primary surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025
    Article
  9. Development of mapping algorithms for gastric cancer: translating EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-STO22 to EQ-5D-5L health utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  10. Associations between financial toxicity, health-related quality of life, and well-being in Indonesian patients with breast cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Development of algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D-5L from the FACT-L in patients with lung cancer: a mapping study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  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

16 authors.

Juan Zhu *Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Xin-Xin Yan *Office of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Cheng-Cheng LiuOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Hong WangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Le WangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Su-Mei CaoSun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xian-Zhen LiaoHunan Office for Cancer Control and Research, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Yun-Feng XiInner Mongolia Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Hohhot, People's Republic of China.
Yong JiCancer Hospital, Shenzhen Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Lin LeiShenzhen Center for Chronic Disease Control, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Hai-Fan XiaoHunan Office for Cancer Control and Research, Hunan Cancer Hospital, Changsha, People's Republic of China.
Hai-Jing GuanChina Center for Health Economic Research, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Wen-Qiang WeiCancer Registry Office, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Min DaiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. daimin2002@hotmail.com.
Wanqing ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. chenwq@cicams.ac.cn.
Ju-Fang ShiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer /Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, 17 Panjiayuan South Lane, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China. shijf@cicams.ac.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81773521, 81402740
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the performance of three-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) and five-level EuroQol five-dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) among common cancer patients in urban China.

methodsA hospital-based cross-sectional survey was conducted in three provinces from 2016 to 2018 in urban China. Patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or lung cancer were recruited to complete the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. Response distribution, discriminatory power (indicator: Shannon index [H'] and Shannon evenness index [J']), ceiling effect (the proportion of full health state), convergent validity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared between the two instruments.

resultsA total of 1802 cancer patients (breast cancer: 601, colorectal cancer: 601, lung cancer: 600) were included, with the mean age of 55.6 years. The average inconsistency rate was 4.4%. Compared with EQ-5D-3L (average: H' = 1.100, J' = 0.696), an improved discriminatory power was observed in EQ-5D-5L (H' = 1.473, J' = 0.932), especially contributing to anxiety/depression dimensions. The ceiling effect was diminished in EQ-5D-5L (26.5%) in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (34.5%) (p < 0.001), mainly reflected in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions. The overall utility score was 0.790 (95% CI 0.778-0.801) for EQ-5D-3L and 0.803 (0.790-0.816) for EQ-5D-5L (p < 0.001). A similar pattern was also observed in the detailed cancer-specific analysis.

conclusionsWith greater discriminatory power, convergent validity and lower ceiling, EQ-5D-5L may be preferable to EQ-5D-3L for the assessment of HRQoL among cancer patients. However, higher utility scores derived form EQ-5D-5L may also lead to lower QALY gains than those of 3L potentially in cost-utility studies and underestimation in the burden of disease.

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsCancerEQ-5D-3LEQ-5D-5LHealth-related quality of life (HRQoL)Psychometrics

Identifiers

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.