ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
A head-to-head comparison of the adult EQ-5D-5L and youth EQ-5D-Y-5L in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple diseases, such as Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS), present at adolescent age and the impact on quality of life (QoL) prolongs into adulthood. For the EQ-5D, a commonly used instrument to measure QoL, the current guideline is ambiguous whether the youth or adult version is to be preferred at adolescent age. To assess which is most suitable, this study tested for equivalence along predefined criteria of the youth (EQ-5D-5L) and adult (EQ-5D-Y-5L) version in an adolescent population receiving bracing therapy for AIS. METHODOLOGY: 107 adolescents were recruited from 4 scoliosis centers in the Netherlands between March 2022 and January 2023; they completed both EQ-5D's and the SRS-22r (scoliosis-specific questionnaire). The following criteria were evaluated using the individual and sum of domains (level-sum-score (LSS)). Our primary criterion for non-equivalence of the EQ-5D's was less than excellent (≤ 0.9) intra-individual agreement using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) analysis for LSS and weighted (quadratic) kappa for domains. Secondary criteria were differences in ceiling using McNemar test; a different number of quantified hypotheses for construct validity achieved using the SRS-22r as comparator; differences in test-retest reliability by comparing ICC/kappa values using a Z-test.
resultsAdolescents had a mean age of 14 years (range 12-18), and 78% were female. Ceiling was mostly comparable between EQ-5D's, ranging from 78 to 81% for mobility and self-care, 52-54% for usual activities, and 31-36% for pain/discomfort. The EQ-5D-5L showed more ceiling (57%) compared to the EQ-5D-Y-5L (41%) on anxiety/depression (p = 0.006). Agreement between the EQ-5D's did not meet our criterion for the LSS (ICC 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.85)), and decreased further at the domain-level. Both EQ-5D's achieved 5/7 validity hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was slightly better for EQ-5D-5L LSS (ICC 0.76 (0.64-0.84)) compared to EQ-5D-Y-5L LSS (ICC 0.69 (0.55-0.79)), although this was statistically insignificant (p = 0.284). This pattern was similar for most domains.
conclusionsThe EQ-5D versions showed insufficient agreement, and cannot be considered fully equivalent. While they were similar in terms of validity and test-retest reliability, differences in score distribution were present. Taken together, we advise using the EQ-5D-5L to monitor the QoL in adolescent patients with AIS, as it avoids switching instruments and thus data discontinuities. Future studies should verify these findings in different patient groups and the general population.
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.