EQ-5D-5L measurement properties are superior to EQ-5D-3L across the continuum of health using US value sets

Author:

Jiang RuixuanORCID,Rand Kim,Kuharic Maja,Pickard A. Simon

Abstract

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to compare the measurement properties of the US EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and -5L to -3L crosswalk value sets (3L; 5L; 5L > 3L) across the spectrum of health. Methods The three scoring approaches were compared in terms of range of scale, percent of worse-than-dead health states, and mean single-level transitions. Discriminative ability was compared by leveraging two cross-sectional datasets. A novel method was used to visualize and compare the responsiveness of 3L and 5L scoring approaches across EQ VAS values. Results The US 5L value set had the broadest range of scale at 1.573 (vs. 1.109 for 3L and crosswalk). The crosswalk had the smallest mean single-level transition of 0.061 (vs. 0.078 for 5L and 0.111 for 3L). The 5L value set tended to be more discriminative/greater statistical efficiency than the crosswalk (F-statistic ratio: 1.111, 95% CI 0.989–1.240) and 3L (F-statistic ratio: 1.102 95% CI 0.861–1.383) across levels of general health. The 5L was the most responsive value set between EQ VAS values of 25 and 75. Conclusion These results imply greater sensitivity of the 5L to health changes and potentially lower incremental cost-utility ratios compared to the 3L.

Funder

EuroQol Research Foundation

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine

Reference27 articles.

1. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. A Guide to ICER’s Methods for Health Technology Assessment. https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ICER_HTA_Guide_102720.pdf. Accessed 27 Oct 2020.

2. Mulligan K, Lakdawalla D, Goldman D, Hlávka J, Peneva D, Ryan M, et al. Health Technology Assessment for the U.S. Healthcare System 2020. https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/research/health-technology-assessment-for-the-u-s-healthcare-system/.

3. Aspen Institute—Health M, and Society Program, USC Schaeffer: Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. Health Technology Assesment for the U.S. Healthcare System Background Paper. https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Health-Technology-Assessment-for-the-U.S.-Healthcare-System_Background-Paper.pdf. Accessed Cot 2019.

4. Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–37.

5. RTI Health Solutions. Summary of Guidance on Health-Utility Measures by Selected Health Technology Assessment Agencies 2019. https://www.rtihs.org/sites/default/files/HTA_document_4_March_2019.pdf.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3