ArticlePharmacoEconomics2024
A Comparison of the Psychometric Properties of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L Using Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison (P-MIC) Study Data.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Agreement and measurement properties of the interviewer-administered, self-completed and proxy-reported versions of the Tigrinya EQ-5D-Y-5L in Ethiopia.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-5L Using DCE Methods That Account for Nonlinear Time Preferences.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Article
- Measuring and Valuing Health Using EuroQol Instruments: New Developments 2025 and Beyond.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Review
- An Australian Value Set for the EQ-5D-Y-3L.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Meeting the Challenges of Preference-Weighted Health-Related Quality-of-Life Measurement in Children.PharmacoEconomics · 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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe EQ-5D-Y is a generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure suitable for children and adolescents. There are two versions of the instrument, which differ in response levels: the three- (Y-3L) and five-level (Y-5L) versions. The Y-5L has been developed to improve the psychometric performance of the Y-3L.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the psychometric properties of Y-5L and to compare the performance of Y-5L with Y-3L in separate self- and proxy-reported samples.
methodsBoth versions of the instrument were administered to children/adolescents (self-report) or caregivers (proxy-report) of Australian children aged 5-18 years. The data were gathered as part of the Australian Paediatric Multi-Instrument Comparison (P-MIC) study. The Y-5L and Y-3L were evaluated in terms of ceiling effects, criterion validity, inconsistency, informativity, and test-retest reliability in both proxy and self-complete populations.
resultsOverall, 5945 respondents completed both the Y-3L and Y-5L, with 2083 proxy and 3862 self-completed responses. Ceiling effects were lower in the Y-5L than the Y-3L. Items from the same domains show the strongest correlation for both samples. Regarding informativity, the Y-5L demonstrated more discriminatory power, indicated by having a higher Shannon diversity index in all domains of the Y-5L compared with the Y-3L. Test-retest showed fair agreement between responses at baseline and follow-up.
conclusionThe Y-5L has demonstrated moderate validity and fair reliability for use in measuring HRQoL in children and adolescents, both when self-reported by children or proxy reported. Overall, Y-5L is a dependable and valid extension from the Y-3L.
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.