Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Aphasia-specific or generic outcomes? a comparison of two health-related quality of life instruments for economic evaluations of aphasia treatments.
Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEconomic evaluations based on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) inform healthcare decisions. The generic EuroQol 5-Dimensions Health Questionnaire, 3-Level (EQ-5D-3L) permits conversion to utility values required for economic evaluations but is not validated for people with aphasia. The aphasia-specific Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g (SAQOL-39g) measures HRQOL, however, cannot be used to generate utility values. This study aimed to compare the performance of these two instruments.
methodsHRQOL was rated at baseline and 12 weeks in participants of the Constraint Induced or Multi-Modal Personalised Aphasia Rehabilitation (COMPARE) randomised controlled trial. We assessed: (1) distribution of self-rated HRQOL scores, (2) convergent validity between EQ-5D-3L (domains; utility values; visual analogue scale) and SAQOL-39g (domain scores; total mean scores) using Spearman's correlations, (3) Construct validity through exploratory factor analysis, and (4) discriminative ability of converted EQ-5D-3L utilities in measuring compromised HRQOL (SAQOL-39g scores ≤ 4).
resultsParticipants (n = 201 baseline, n = 190 12 weeks) completed both instruments (69% male, median age 63.6 years, median time since stroke 2.5 years). Ceiling effects were high for the EQ-5D-3L at baseline (45-79%) versus the SAQOL-39g (0-6%). Convergent validity between the SAQOL-39g communication domain and the EQ-5D-3L (r = 0.04-0.28) was weak at both time points. Factor analysis revealed distinct underlying constructs between instruments. EQ-5D-3L utility scores demonstrated reasonable performance (0.80 baseline; 0.78 12-weeks) in measuring poor HRQOL.
conclusionOur findings suggest that EQ-5D-3L use in economic evaluations including people with aphasia requires caution. Alternative HRQOL instruments require evaluation to ensure fair prioritisation of aphasia treatments.
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.