SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2025
Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D in diseases of the upper respiratory tract: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Synthesis 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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world impact of mepolizumab on symptom control and health utility in severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: the RINOSUR 2.0 multicenter cohort study.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of Allergic Rhinitis Treatments on Utilities and Quality of Life: A MASK-air Study.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the published evidence regarding the measurement properties of the EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) in patients with upper respiratory tract diseases, encompassing conditions associated with the nose, pharynx, and larynx.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was carried out utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EuroQol website (up to November 21, 2024). Full-text English articles focusing on original research concerning the measurement properties of the EQ-5D, including construct validity, test-retest reliability, or responsiveness, were included. Studies involving experimental versions of the EQ-5D were excluded. The quality assessment utilized the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and data synthesis followed the COSMIN methodology.
resultsA total of 22 studies, published across 23 publications (20 to 17,780 patients), were included, with the majority focusing on chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis. There was high certainty of the evidence of sufficient construct validity for EQ VAS and the EQ-5D Index (3L and 5L). In case of chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis, test in line with the hypotheses constituted 100% and 92%, respectively. Evidence regarding responsiveness had moderate certainty of sufficient quality. There was no available data for test-retest reliability.
conclusionBoth EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L are suitable for assessing health-related quality of life in upper respiratory tract diseases, though their responsiveness needs further confirmation. The available evidence suggests that both versions have sufficient construct validity, and may be used to assess HRQoL especially in chronic rhinosinusitis and allergic rhinitis.
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.