ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Validation and comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 in myopic patients requiring corneal refractive surgery in China.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeDifferent health-related quality of life scales are suitable for various populations and scenarios; hence, the selection of measurement tools must be based on research objectives and focal points. To facilitate the choice between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 in clinical and economic research of myopic patients undergoing corneal refractive surgery, the study aims to assess and compare EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 among the patients in China.
methodsA total of 411 participants with a mean age of 25.6 years were recruited. Information collected including demographic characteristics, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1. The ceiling effect was evaluated by calculating the proportion of participants who reported the best possible health states. Agreement between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 health utility scores (HUSs) was tested using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plot. Convergent validity of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 HUSs was evaluated using the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) with VF-14 as a calibration standard.
resultsCeiling effects were 75.2% and 40.4% for EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1, respectively. ICC between the two HUSs was 0.611 (average-measure). Bland-Altman plots showed that the agreement varied across different HUS segments. Correlation between EQ-5D-5L HUS and VF-14 (r = 0.363) was higher than that between SF-6Dv1 HUS and VF-14 (r = 0.226). EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 HUSs can only distinguish one clinical condition (i.e., chronic pain symptom); but they can identify health differences across all self-reported known-groups. EQ-5D-5L HUS had greater sensitivity; but SF-6Dv1 HUS was more responsive at follow-ups.
conclusionsEQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv1 HUS cannot be used interchangeably in myopic patients undergoing corneal refractive surgery. It appears that EQ-5D-5L HUS performs better in terms of convergent validity and sensitivity; but SF-6Dv1 HUS is more responsive.
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.