Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Sang-il Lee³  Min-Woo Jo³  Seon-Ha Kim¹  Sang-Kyu Kim² 

[1] Department of Nursing, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungnam, South Korea;Department of Preventive Medicine, Dongguk UniversityCollege of Medicine, 123, Dongdae-ro, Gyeongju-si, Gyeongbuk, South Korea;Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88, Olympic-ro 43-gil, Songpa-gu 138-736, Seoul, South Korea

关键词: Stroke;    Minimally important difference;    Health-related quality of life;    SF-6D;    EQ-5D;   

Others  :  1144121
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3

 received in 2014-09-04, accepted in 2015-02-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aim of the present study was to estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and to explore the responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D indices in stroke.

Methods

We used observational longitudinal survey data of EQ-5D and SF-36 that were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 10 months. A range of MIDs for both indexes was estimated using anchor-based approaches. The modified Rankin scale and the Barthel index were used as an anchor.

Results

The MID estimates for EQ-5D ranged from 0.08 to 0.12 and those for SF-6D ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 in stroke patients. The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index.

Conclusions

The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index. These MID estimates may assist the interpretation of health related quality of life assessments related to health care intervention in stroke patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Kim et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Statistics Korea. The cause of death statistics in 2010. http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parentId=D. Accessed 1 Jan 2012.
• [2]Cella DF, Tulsky DS: Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Invest 1993, 11:327-36.
• [3]Golomb BA, Vickrey BG, Hays RD: A review of health-related quality-of-life measures in stroke. Pharmacoeconomics 2001, 19:155-85.
• [4]Salter KL, Moses MB, Foley NC, Teasell RW: Health-related quality of life after stroke: what are we measuring? Int J Rehabil Res 2008, 31:111-7.
• [5]Yost KJ, Eton DT: Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof 2005, 28:172-91.
• [6]Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH: Commentary-goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res 2005, 40(2):593-7.
• [7]Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Eton DT, Cella D, Yost KJ, Yount SE, Peterman AH, Neuberg DS, et al.: A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. J Clin Epidemiol 2004, 57:898-910.
• [9]Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H: Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD 2005, 2(1):63-7.
• [10]Liang MH: Longitudinal construct validity: establishment of clinical meaning in patient evaluative instruments. Med Care 2000, 38:II84-90.
• [11]Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, Keller RB, Lew RA, Fossel AH, et al.: Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 1998, 36:491-502.
• [12]Lydick E, Epstein RS: Interpretation of quality of life changes. Qual Life Res 1993, 2:221-6.
• [13]Turner D, Schünemann HJ, Griffith LE, Beaton DE, Griffiths AM, Critch JN, et al.: The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63(1):28-36.
• [14]de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM: Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:54. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [16]Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R: Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:235-41.
• [17]Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish M: Concepts, Measures, and application. In User’s Manual for the SF-36v2® Health Survey. Quality Metric Incorporated, Lincoln RI; 2007:13-24.
• [18]Walters SJ, Brazier JE: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1523-32.
• [19]Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH: Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:207-19.
• [20]Kvam AK, Fayers PM, Wisloff F: Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2011, 87:330-7.
• [21]Lee YK, Nam HS, Chuang LH, Kim KY, Yang HK, Kwon IS, et al.: South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states. Value Health 2009, 12:1187-93.
• [22]Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M: The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002, 21:271-92.
• [23]Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J: Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke 1999, 30:1538-41.
• [24]Kim SY, Won CW, Rho YG: The Validity and Reliability of Korean Version of Bathel ADL Index. J Korean Acad Fam Med 2004, 25:534-41.
• [25]Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V: The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988, 10(2):61-3.
• [26]Kim SH, Hwang JS, Kim TW, Hong YS, Jo MW: Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D for cancer patients in Korea. Support Care Cancer 2012, 20(12):3155-60.
• [27]Lee WJ, Song KH, Noh JH, Choi YJ, Jo MW: Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes. J Korean Med Sci 2012, 27(3):255-60.
• [28]Kim MH, Cho YS, Uhm WS, Kim S, Bae SC: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the EQ-5D in patients with rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1401-6.
• [29]Han CW, Lee EJ, Iwaya T, Kataoka H, Kohzuki M: Development of the Korean version of Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey: health related QOL of healthy elderly people and elderly patients in Korea. Tohoku J Exp Med 2004, 203:189-94.
• [30]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF: Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989, 27:S178-89.
• [31]Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA: Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 1985, 28:542-7.
• [32]Cohen J: The t-test for means. In Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ; 1988:19-74.
• [33]D’Olhaberriague L, Litvan I, Mitsias P, Mansbach HH: A reappraisal of reliability and validity studies in stroke. Stroke 1996, 27:2331-6.
• [34]Kaplan RM, Tally S, Hays RD, Feeny D, Ganiats TG, Palta M, et al.: Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure were not equally responsive to change. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, 64:497-506.
• [35]Feeny D, Spritzer K, Hays RD, Liu H, Ganiats TG, Kaplan RM, et al.: Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: Cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients. Med Decis Making 2012, 32(2):273-86.
• [36]Hartigan I, O’Mahony D: The Barthel Index: comparing inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors in an older adult rehabilitation unit. Appl Nurs Res 2011, 24(1):e1-7.