Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34181154›Full record

ReviewQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review.

Tianxin Pan, Brendan Mulhern, Rosalie Viney, Richard Norman, An Tran-Duy, Janel Hanmer, Nancy Devlin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Understanding the measurement relationship between EQ-5D-5L, PROMIS-29 and PROPr.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

7 authors.

Tianxin PanHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. tianxin.pan1@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2243-8818
Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Rosalie VineyCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
An Tran-DuyHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Janel HanmerDepartment of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Nancy DevlinHealth Economics Unit, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health , University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEQ-5D and PROMIS-29 are both concise, generic measures of patient-reported outcomes accompanied by preference weights that allow the estimation of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both instruments are candidates for use in economic evaluation. However, they have different features in terms of the domains selected to measure respondents' self-perceived health and the characteristics of (and methods used to obtain) the preference weights. It is important to understand the relationship between the instruments and the implications of choosing either for the evidence used in decision-making. This literature review aimed to synthesise existing evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 (and measures based on it, such as PROMIS-29+2) and EQ-5D (both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L).

methodsA literature review was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies investigating the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-based instruments.

resultsThe literature search identified 95 unique studies, of which nine studies met the inclusion criteria, i.e. compared both instruments. Six studies examined the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L. Three main types of relationship have been examined in the nine studies: (a) comparing PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D as descriptive systems; (b) mapping PROMIS-29 domains to EQ-5D utilities; and (c) comparing and transforming PROMIS-29 utilities to EQ-5D utilities.

conclusionThis review has highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D. The impact of choosing either instrument on the evidence used in cost-effectiveness analysis is currently unclear. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between the two instruments.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth StatusHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSurveys and QuestionnairesComparisonDescriptive systemsEQ-5DPatient-reported outcome measuresPreference-accompanied measuresPROMIS-29Utility scores

Identifiers

PMID34181154

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.