These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) with the Short Form-36 preference-based SF-6D in chronic kidney disease.
    Author: Davison SN, Jhangri GS, Feeny DH.
    Journal: Value Health; 2009; 12(2):340-5. PubMed ID: 18657096.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Assess within-subject agreement and compare discriminative abilities between the SF-6D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: The HUI3 and Short Form-36 were self-completed by 185 CKD patients enrolled in a prospective study of incident patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD. RESULTS: The mean preference-based score for the SF-6D was 0.67 +/- 0.13 compared to 0.58 +/- 0.26 for the HUI3 (P < 0.01). There was a strong association between SF-6D and HUI3 scores (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.65) and moderate agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.44. The HUI3 was better able to capture more severe burden of illness with fewer floor effects. The SF-6D was better at capturing differences among patients at the top range of the scale with fewer ceiling effects. Both the HUI3 and SF-6D were able to discriminate between patient groups differing in disease severity defined as predialysis versus dialysis dependent and depressive symptoms using a Beck Depression Inventory II score of >or=14 as the cutoff. The HUI3 was better able to discriminate greater depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: The SF-6D and the HUI3 generate different preference-based scores for patients with CKD and any comparison between their scores should be made with caution. The HUI3 appears more suitable for measuring the health of populations with greater disability such as patients with CKD. It remains to be determined whether these differences will remain when one compares within-instrument differences in preference scores over time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]