Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38878238›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2024

How Does the New Australian EQ-5D-5L Value Set Impact Utility Scores? Analysis of Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Ilana N Ackerman, Richard Norman, Ian A Harris, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Stephen Gill, Peter Lewis, Sze-Ee Soh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Health-related quality of life and lifetime QALY loss among Indigenous Australians with chronic conditions: an age-stratified analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Ilana N AckermanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. ilana.ackerman@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6028-1612
Richard NormanSchool of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3112-3893
Ian A HarrisSchool of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kara CashmanSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Michelle LorimerSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3785-4395
Stephen GillBarwon Centre for Orthopaedic Research and Education, St John of God Hospital, Geelong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8722-0572
Peter LewisAustralian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2641-3754
Sze-Ee SohSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1400-7700

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith advances in health state valuation methods, new value sets may be developed for some countries. Quantifying the impact of moving between existing and new value sets is critical for guiding decisions around utility score interpretation, reporting and comparison with published scores.

objectivesThe aim of this study is to examine, using large-scale national registry data, how the new Australian EQ-5D-5L value set impacts utility scores for patients undergoing joint replacement.

methodsData from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. All primary total hip (THR), knee (TKR), and shoulder replacement (TSR) procedures between 2018 and 2022 with pre-operative and 6-month post-operative EQ-5D-5L data were included. Utility scores were generated using the 2013 and 2023 Australian value sets ('previous' and 'new' value sets, respectively) and analysed descriptively for each joint replacement cohort. Agreement between the two utility score sets was evaluated using concordance correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

resultsEQ-5D-5L data were available for 17,576 THR, 23,010 TKR, and 1667 TSR procedures. The new value set produced a lowest possible EQ-5D-5L utility score of -0.30 (compared with -0.68 previously) and fewer patients had 'worse-than-dead' quality of life (score < 0.00) before surgery. Mean pre-operative scores were 0.21 (THR), 0.19 (TKR), and 0.17 (TSR) units higher with the new value set, and mean post-operative scores were 0.11-0.14 units higher. The new value set resulted in smaller effect sizes for the THR (1.08 versus 1.23) and TKR cohorts (0.86 versus 0.92). There was moderate-to-good overall agreement (coefficients: 0.70-0.80), but concordance varied by time point.

conclusionAlthough acceptable agreement was evident, the new Australian value set produces less extreme negative utility scores and markedly higher group-level scores. Transition to reporting new EQ-5D-5L utility scores will require accompanying explanation to signal measurement modifications rather than better quality of life.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeRegistriesAgedAged, 80 and overArthroplasty, ReplacementArthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID38878238
PMCPMC11339144

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.