ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2024
Different Frameworks, Similar Results? Head-to-Head Comparison of the Generic Preference-Based Health-Outcome Measures CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L.
Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2024. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From simple to even simpler, but not too simple: a head-to-head comparison of the Better-Worse and Drop-Down methods for measuring patient health status.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared two generic, preference-based health-outcome measures: the novel patient-centered Château-Santé Base (CS-Base), entailing a multi-attribute preference response framework, and the widely used EQ-5D-5L, regarding effects of different measurement frameworks and different descriptive systems.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study using a random sample of patients (3019 reached, 1988 included) in the USA with various health conditions. The CS-Base (12 attributes, each with four levels), EQ-5D-5L and the 5D-4L (an ad hoc, multi-attribute preference response-based measure that includes five attributes similar to the EQ-5D-5L, but with four levels) were used as health-outcome measures. We compared the proportions of problems reported on health attributes, statistical robustness and face validity of coefficients, attribute importance, differentiation between health states based on health-state values obtained with these measures, and user experience.
resultsAll the CS-Base and 5D-4L coefficients had logical orders and significant differences from the reference level (p < 0.001). Substantial differences were observed in the CS-Base and 5D-4L coefficients between all levels on all attributes, while subtle differences were seen in those of the EQ-5D-5L. Attribute importance of usual (daily) activities were lowest or second lowest in all the three health-outcome measures. Attributes with the highest importance in the CS-Base, 5D-4L, and EQ-5D-5L were respectively mobility, anxiety/depression, and pain/discomfort. Four attributes are similar between the CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L, eight are exclusive to CS-Base. Of the eight, vision and hearing had the highest importance. Health-state values showed a smoother distribution with minimal discontinuity in the CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L than in the 5D-4L. In user experience evaluation, both CS-Base and the 5D-4L showed mean scores above 50 (indicating positive evaluation) in terms of the description of health and ease of understanding.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that CS-Base and 5D-4L, which are grounded in the multi-attribute preference response framework, produced statistically robust coefficients, with better face validity than those for the EQ-5D-5L. CS-Base and the EQ-5D-5L outperformed the 5D-4L in differentiating between health states. Notwithstanding differences in content, measurement frameworks, and estimated coefficients, the computed health-state values were similar between CS-Base and EQ-5D-5L.
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.