ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this investigation is to assess and contrast the effectiveness of the two EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) versions-EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L-in assessing one-year quality of life outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Material and method: From the medical records at the Honghui Hospital, Xi'an Jiaotong University, 402 individuals aged 50 and above, who were one-year post-operation, were selected to fill out survey questionnaires during their return hospital visits. Of these, 231 respondents (57.5%) completed the questionnaire; 228 completed both versions, and 56 completed the EQ-5D retest questionnaire. The assessment included missing data, ceiling effects, informativity and discriminatory power, as well as response consistency, redistribution properties, and inconsistency. Reliability and validity were also evaluated. Results: The results indicate that the EQ-5D-5L surpasses the EQ-5D-3L in construct validity, informativity, detection precision, and discriminatory power. Consistency reliability is also better in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L. Both instrument versions maintained reliable levels of test-retest reliability. Conclusion: In patients with KOA undergoing UKA, the EQ-5D-5L has proven superior in measurement capabilities when compared with the EQ-5D-3L one-year post-operation. Thus, it is advised to utilize the EQ-5D-5L for ongoing assessments of quality of life in this specific group of patients.
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.