ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A comparison of descriptive systems and utility scores in patients with kidney chronic disease.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the psychometric performance and interchangeability of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in a Spanish cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease using real-world data.
methods170 patients completed the generic EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-12 v2, and the specific KDQOL-SF v1.3. The psychometric properties assessed included feasibility, ceiling effect, construct validity (convergent and known-group validity), and informativity. Interchangeability between both versions was examined via inconsistency rates and levels of agreement.
resultsBoth versions demonstrated excellent feasibility (< 0.6% missing data). The overall ceiling effect was identical (28.2%), but the EQ-5D-5L showed reduced ceiling effects across four dimensions—especially mobility—suggesting better discriminatory power. The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated slightly stronger construct validity, with 75% of the predefined hypotheses confirmed versus 69% for the EQ-5D-5L. The EQ-5D-5L exhibited greater absolute informativity across all dimensions [percent increase from the EQ-5D-3L to the EQ-5D-5L: mobility (81.29%), self-care (24.22%), usual activities (48.08%), pain/discomfort (47.87%), anxiety/depression (27.48%)], and greater relative informativity in three dimensions [mobility (23.75%), usual activities (1.08%), pain/discomfort (0.94%)]. Inconsistencies were infrequent (6%) and mostly mild (level 1: 5.6%). Agreement was“almost perfect” (concordance correlation coefficient: 0.858; 95%CI: 0.816–0.891). However, the mean utility was greater for EQ-5D-5L (0.783±0.229) than for EQ-5D-3L (0.738±0.274), raising concerns about interchangeability.
conclusionsThe EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L are not interchangeable in patients with chronic kidney disease. The EQ-5D-5L version showed slightly better psychometric properties, particularly in informativity. Given these advantages, the EQ-5D-5L is the preferred instrument for assessing health-related quality of life and conducting health economic evaluations in those patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42018121What 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.