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: A head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and 15D descriptive systems and index values in a general population sample.
    Author: Nikl A, Janssen MF, Brodszky V, Rencz F.
    Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2023 Feb 19; 21(1):17. PubMed ID: 36803866.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The EQ-5D-5L and 15D are generic preference-accompanied health status measures with similar dimensions. In this study, we aim to compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and 15D descriptive systems and index values in a general population sample. METHODS: In August 2021, an online cross-sectional survey was conducted in a representative adult general population sample (n = 1887). The EQ-5D-5L and 15D descriptive systems and index values were compared in terms of ceiling and floor, informativity (Shannon's Evenness index), agreement, convergent and known-groups validity for 41 chronic physical and mental health conditions. Danish value sets were used to compute index values for both instruments. As a sensitivity analysis, index values were also estimated using the Hungarian EQ-5D-5L and Norwegian 15D value sets. RESULTS: Overall, 270 (8.6%) and 1030 (3.4*10-6%) unique profiles occurred on the EQ-5D-5L and 15D. The EQ-5D-5L dimensions (0.51-0.70) demonstrated better informativity than those of 15D (0.44-0.69). EQ-5D-5L and 15D dimensions capturing similar areas of health showed moderate or strong correlations (0.558-0.690). The vision, hearing, eating, speech, excretion and mental function 15D dimensions demonstrated very weak or weak correlations with all EQ-5D-5L dimensions, which may indicate potential room for EQ-5D-5L bolt-ons. The 15D index values showed lower ceiling than the EQ-5D-5L (21% vs. 36%). The mean index values were 0.86 for the Danish EQ-5D-5L, 0.87 for the Hungarian EQ-5D-5L, 0.91 for the Danish 15D and 0.81 for the Norwegian 15D. Strong correlations were found between the index values (Danish EQ-5D-5L vs. Danish 15D 0.671, Hungarian EQ-5D-5L vs. Norwegian 15D 0.638). Both instruments were able to discriminate between all chronic condition groups with moderate or large effect sizes (Danish EQ-5D-5L 0.688-3.810, Hungarian EQ-5D-5L 1.233-4.360, Danish 15D 0.623-3.018 and Norwegian 15D 1.064-3.816). Compared to the 15D, effect sizes were larger for the EQ-5D-5L in 88-93% of chronic condition groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to compare the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L and 15D in a general population sample. Despite having 10 fewer dimensions, the EQ-5D-5L performed better than the 15D in many aspects. Our findings help to understand the differences between generic preference-accompanied measures and support resource allocation decisions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]