ArticleBMC public health2023
Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in measuring health status of populations in Chinese university staff and students.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the reliability and responsiveness of the SF-6Dv2 and comparing its validity to the EQ-5D-5L among colorectal cancer patients in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D): Development and Evolution.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- Psychometric performance of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 in patients with lymphoma in China.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo compare measurement properties of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 in university staff and students in China.
methodsA total of 291 staff and 183 undergraduates or postgraduates completed the two instruments assigned in a random order. The health utility scores (HUS) of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 were calculated using the respective value sets for Chinese populations. The agreement of HUSs was examined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Convergent validity of their HUSs and similar dimensions were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Known-group validity of the HUSs and EQ-VAS score was assessed by comparing the scores of participants with and without three conditions (i.e., disease, symptom or discomfort, and injury), as well as number of any of the three conditions; their sensitivity was also compared.
resultsThe ICCs between the two HUSs were 0.567 (staff) and 0.553 (students). Bland-Altman plot found that EQ-5D-5L HUSs were generally higher. Strong correlation was detected for two similar dimensions (pain/discomfort of EQ-5D-5L and pain of SF-6DV2; anxiety/depression of EQ-5D-5L and mental health of SF-6DV2) in both samples. The correlation between the two HUSs were strong (0.692 for staff and 0.703 for students), and were stronger than their correlations with EQ-VAS score. All the three scores could discriminate the difference in three known-groups (disease, symptom or discomfort, number of any of the three conditions). The two HUSs were more sensitive than EQ-VAS score; and either of them was not superior than the other.
conclusionsBoth EQ-5D-5L and SF-6DV2 HUSs have acceptable measurement properties (convergent validity, known-groups validity, sensitivity) in Chinese university staff and students. Nevetheless, only EQ-5D-5L (PD and AD) and SF-6DV2 (PN and MH) showed indicated good convergent validity as expected. Two types of HUSs cannot be used interchangeably, and each has its own advantages in sensitivity.
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.