ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
A cross-country comparison of the psychometric performance of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the comparative performance of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in the general population of Quebec (Canada), Tehran (Iran), and Japan.
methodsData on SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were collected in the three countries. Descriptive differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were assessed using t-tests, as well as ceiling effects were evaluated based on the percentage of "no problem" levels reported. The known-group validity of both measures was assessed by comparing utility scores across health and demographic subgroups using t-tests or ANOVA and by calculating effect sizes across known groups. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) analysis and F-statistic ratios were used to further validate the findings from the known-group validity analyses. Convergent validity for both instruments was assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. The agreement between instruments was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.
resultsA total of 2,378 respondents for Quebec, 3,061 for Tehran, and 3,933 for Japan were included. Differences in utility values between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L were statistically significant, with SF-6Dv2 generally yielding lower utility scores. Both instruments demonstrated strong known-group validity, effectively distinguishing between diseased and healthy groups as well as various demographic characteristics. However, EQ-5D-5L outperformed SF-6Dv2 for most demographic characteristics based on AUROC analysis and F-statistic ratios. In contrast, their performance in distinguishing between healthy and diseased groups did not favor a particular instrument. Convergent validity analyses indicated strong associations between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values in Quebec (0.760) and Tehran (0.737). The agreement between SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L utility values was moderate in Quebec (0.69) and strong in Tehran (0.837). Bland-Altman plots indicated that differences between the two instruments tended to increase as the average score decreased.
conclusionBoth EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 demonstrated favorable psychometric performance in terms of known-group validity and convergent validity. These findings suggest that both instruments are valid tools for health utility measurement for use in general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41348290What 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.