ArticleBMJ open2020
Estimation of minimally important difference of the EQ-5D-5L utility scores among patients with either hypertension or diabetes or both: a cross-sectional study in Hong Kong.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of minimum important changes for generic multi-attribute utility instruments and recommendations for their estimation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes and cost-utility analysis of comprehensive geriatric assessment models in hospitalized frail older patients in Thailand.BMC geriatrics · 2026Trial
- The psychometric properties of the amharic version of EuroQoL five-dimensions-five level among Ethiopian cervical cancer patients.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Article
- Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo estimate and report the minimally important difference (MID) of the EuroQol five-dimensional five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) using the Hong Kong (HK) utility score among patients with either hypertension or diabetes or both.
designData were analysed using secondary data analysis based on a cross-sectional study assessing patients' experiences in HK.
settingA representative sample was recruited from 26 specialist outpatient clinics in HK.
participantsWe analysed data from 2231 and 662 patients who reported having hypertension or diabetes alone, respectively, and 874 patients had these two diseases.
interventionAn instrument-defined approach was applied to estimate MID stratified according to sex and age for the three subpopulations.
resultsThe overall MID (oMID) estimates were 0.089, 0.086 and 0.089 for patients with hypertension or diabetes alone and with these two diseases, respectively. The adjusted MID (aMID) estimate was smaller than the oMID, and the improved MID was larger than the deteriorated MID. Women had larger oMID but smaller aMID than men. Younger respondents had larger aMID than older respondents. Effect sizes ranged from 0.30 to 0.503, which fit our preset criteria.
conclusionFour types of MID of the EQ-5D utility score for patients with hypertension or diabetes alone and with these two diseases were reported. Variations in the MID estimates should be further explored in other populations or using different statistical methods.
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.