Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38085457›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2024

A Review of the Use of EQ-5D for Clinical Outcome Assessment in Health Technology Assessment, Regulatory Claims, and Published Literature.

Caroline Shaw, Louise Longworth, Bryan Bennett, Louise McEntee-Richardson, James W Shaw

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 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 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Exploration of visual analogue scale versions with the EQ-HWB-9 to measure health, social care, and carer-related quality of life: a VASt landscape.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  4. EQ-5D-5L population norms for Singapore: a household survey-based analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Psychometric testing of two respiratory bolt-on items to EQ-5D-5L in patients with obstructive airway diseases.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline ShawPutnam, The Core, Bath Lane, Newcastle Helix, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5TF, UK. Caroline.Shaw@putassoc.com.ORCID 0009-0006-2944-4715
Louise LongworthPutnam, The Core, Bath Lane, Newcastle Helix, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5TF, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2512-4862
Bryan BennettWorldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Limited, Uxbridge, UK.
Louise McEntee-RichardsonPutnam, The Core, Bath Lane, Newcastle Helix, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5TF, UK.
James W ShawWorldwide Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Bristol-Myers Squibb (United Kingdom) · GBBristol-Myers Squibb (United States) · USNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim is to identify the extent to which EQ-5D is used as a clinical outcome assessment (COA) endpoint in a non-economic context in health technology assessment (HTA) decisions, regulatory labelling claims and published literature. Drug technology appraisals (TAs) published by HTA agencies in England, France, Germany and the USA between 2019 and 2021 were identified. Product labelling for drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2021 were also identified. A systematic literature review (SLR) was also performed. Documents reporting EQ-5D in the context of economic evaluation only were excluded. EQ-5D data were reported for COA in 195 of 1072 (18%) published TAs, with the majority reported for Germany (n = 138). The EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) was reported most frequently, in 68% of all TAs, and accounted for 100% of Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) and 94% of Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) TAs. In total, 320 drugs were approved or reviewed by the EMA and 735 by the FDA. Of these, 15 reported EQ-5D data from the EMA and 35 from the FDA; however, all EQ-5D data submitted to the FDA were reported in supporting documentation. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 32% of all documents. For the SLR, 329 of 4248 (8%) retrieved records were included. Reporting of both EQ-5D index and EQ-VAS was most frequent, occurring in 36% of studies. Clinical evaluation of recent drug approvals, based on regulatory, HTA and systematic literature reviews, demonstrated limited use of EQ-5D outside the context of economic evaluations. This may be due to the likelihood that the EQ-5D may lack sensitivity to detect improvement in conditions with small expected therapeutic benefit, or because the EQ-5D is not considered an adequate COA tool for clinical evaluation of treatment benefit. EQ-5D, as a COA, was more likely to be used in clinical evaluation of cancer drugs than drugs for treatment in any other disease category. HTA bodies were more likely to use the EQ-5D for COA, especially in Germany.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38085457
PMCPMC11039499
OpenAlexW4389616566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.