ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
A comparative study of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D scales based on patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOral anticoagulant therapy is widely used for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic diseases, yet it imposes significant burdens on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare the performance of two generic preference-based measures (GPBMs), the EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D, in assessing HRQoL among patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy, and to further explore the factors influencing their HRQoL.
methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional survey was conducted across 14 hospitals in China. Patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy were enrolled and completed the EQ-5D-5 L, SF-6D, anticoagulation satisfaction (assessed by DASS), health literacy (assessed by HLS-SF9), and self-efficacy (assessed by NGSES-SF). Ceiling and floor effects, the association and agreement between the two measures, known-group validity and multi-factor analysis were assessed.
resultsA total of 379 patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy were included in the analysis. The mean (standard deviation) utility scores were 0.837 (0.187) for the EQ-5D-5 L and 0.729 (0.132) for SF-6D. The EQ-5D-5 L demonstrated a higher ceiling effect (21.11%) compared with SF-6D (1.32%). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D was 0.724, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.557. Patients with higher anticoagulation satisfaction, health literacy, and self-efficacy reported significantly better quality of life. The EQ-5D-5 L showed better ability to distinguish differences in a wider range of clinical factors, including the type of thrombotic diseases, anticoagulant medications, and comorbidities, compared with the SF-6D, which only detected differences in the duration of anticoagulation, number of medications, and history of thrombotic events.
conclusionBoth EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D demonstrated satisfactory construct validity in assessing patients undergoing oral anticoagulant therapy, with EQ-5D-5 L showing a higher ceiling effect and superior discriminative ability for disease-specific differentiation. Given the distinct characteristics and performance of the EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D, these instruments should not be used interchangeably in patients receiving anticoagulant therapy. These findings offer valuable insights for optimizing HRQoL assessment and management in patients receiving oral anticoagulant therapy.
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.