ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Comparison of the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among patients with diabetes 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. 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.
- A head-to-head comparison of health utilities and measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among people living with HIV in China.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo validate and compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 among patients with diabetes in China.
methodsA quota sampling method was used to recruit a representative sample, social-demographic characteristics, self-reported EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 responses were collected through online survey. Test-retest reliability and the agreement between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utility values were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman plot. Hypotheses testing including convergent validity and known-group validity were examined using Spearman's rank correlation and effect sizes, respectively. Sensitivity was compared using relative efficiency and receiver operating characteristic.
resultsA total of 600 respondents (53.67% male; mean age 60 years; 90% type 2, 10% type 1 diabetes) were included in this study. A higher ceiling effect was observed for EQ-5D-5L than for SF-6Dv2 (10.5% vs. 0.5%). The mean (SD) utility was 0.771 (0.196) for EQ-5D-5L and 0.671 (0.153) for SF-6Dv2. Agreement between the two instruments was good with an ICC of 0.776. The ICC values for the test-retest analysis were 0.982 for EQ-5D-5L and 0.986 for SF-6Dv2 among the subgroup (N = 100). The Spearman's rank correlation (range: 0.312-0.661) indicated an acceptable convergent validity between the dimensions of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2. Hypotheses for known-group validity were fulfilled in both instruments. The EQ-5D-5L showed basically equivalent discriminative capacities with the SF-6Dv2 (ES: 0.92-2.08 vs. 1.03-2.05). The SF-6Dv2 had 14.7-445.8% higher efficiency than the EQ-5D-5L at revealing differences in self-reported health status, except for the group dichotomized by "very good, good, fair or bad versus very bad".
conclusionsEQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 showed generally comparable reliability, validity, and sensitivity in this sample of Chinese patients with diabetes. However, the utility values derived from the two instruments differed, indicating that they may not be used interchangeably. Further research is needed to evaluate and compare their responsiveness.
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.