SynthesisScientific reports2026
Health-related quality of life in patients with psoriasis in Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of EQ-5D utility scores.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health utility estimates are important for cost-utility analyses, treatment prioritization, and health technology assessment in psoriasis. Region-specific estimates may be particularly valuable for informing these decisions in Asian settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized EQ-5D utility scores reported in Asian psoriasis populations and explored variation by country of study, psoriasis type, EQ-5D version, value set, and disease severity. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2025 identified studies reporting EQ-5D index or EQ-VAS scores in Asian adults with psoriasis. Cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, and randomized controlled studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Risk of bias was assessed using AXIS, NOS, and RoB-2. Random-effects meta-analyses, subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and domain-wise proportion analyses were conducted. Fourteen studies comprising 2,322 patients with psoriasis were included. The pooled EQ-5D utility index was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78–0.89; I² = 95.00%) across 10 studies with 1,453 participants. Subgroup analyses suggested variation by country of study, psoriasis type, EQ-5D version, and value set. The pooled EQ-5D VAS score was 70.73 (95% CI: 67.01–74.46; I² = 87.10%) from eight studies with 1,227 participants. In moderate-to-severe psoriasis, the pooled EQ-5D utility estimate was 0.80 (95% CI: -0.14 to 1.75) and the pooled EQ-VAS score was 63.08 (95% CI: 38.71–87.45). Domain-wise analysis indicated that pain/discomfort was the most commonly reported problem domain (22%), followed by mobility (20%), whereas self-care was least frequently reported. Funnel plot asymmetry and Egger’s test suggested possible small-study effects for EQ-5D utility scores, although trim-and-fill adjustment did not materially change the pooled estimate. Interpretation of these findings should take into account substantial unexplained heterogeneity, variation in EQ-5D versions and value sets, limited severity-stratified data, and uneven geographic coverage across Asia. The pooled estimates may provide preliminary, context-informed utility values for Asian psoriasis populations and could be useful as indicative inputs for economic evaluations and health technology assessments where country-specific data are limited.Registration: This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251062372).
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.