A Systematic Literature Review of Important and Meaningful Differences in the EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale scores.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS Value in Health Pub Date : 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.006
Fatima Al Sayah, Xuejing Jin, Hilary Short, Nathan S McClure, Arto Ohinmaa, Jeffrey A Johnson
{"title":"A Systematic Literature Review of Important and Meaningful Differences in the EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale scores.","authors":"Fatima Al Sayah, Xuejing Jin, Hilary Short, Nathan S McClure, Arto Ohinmaa, Jeffrey A Johnson","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary, synthesis, and appraisal of minimally important difference (MID) estimates for EQ-5D instruments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search using relevant terms related to \"minimally/clinically, meaningful/ important difference/change\" and \"EQ-5D\" in six major databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (up to Jan 2023). We included studies that provided at least one original MID estimate for the EQ-5D.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 90 studies reporting 840 MID estimates were included. MID estimates for the EQ-5D-3L index score ranged from 0.075 to 0.8 using distribution-based approaches (239 estimates; 20 studies), from 0.003 to 0.72 using anchor-based approaches (189 estimates; 43 studies), and from 0.038 to 0.082 using instrument-defined approaches (4 estimates; 1 study). For the EQ-5D-5L, MID estimates ranged from 0.023 to 0.115 using distribution-based approaches (17 estimates; 12 studies), from 0.01 to 0.41 using anchor-based approaches (97 estimates; 15 studies), and from 0.037 to 0.101 using instrument-defined approaches (62 estimates; 8 studies). For the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), MID estimates ranged from 0.96 to 16.6 using distribution-based approaches (87 estimates; 14 studies), and from 0.42 to 51.0 using anchor-based approaches (84 estimates; 24 studies). MID estimates varied by underlying clinical conditions, baseline scores, and direction of change.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A wide range of MID estimates for EQ-5D instruments were identified, highlighting the variability of MID across populations, estimation methods, direction of change, baseline scores, and EQ-5D versions. These factors should be carefully considered when selecting an appropriate MID for interpreting EQ-5D scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2024.11.006","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to provide a comprehensive summary, synthesis, and appraisal of minimally important difference (MID) estimates for EQ-5D instruments.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search using relevant terms related to "minimally/clinically, meaningful/ important difference/change" and "EQ-5D" in six major databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (up to Jan 2023). We included studies that provided at least one original MID estimate for the EQ-5D.

Results: A total of 90 studies reporting 840 MID estimates were included. MID estimates for the EQ-5D-3L index score ranged from 0.075 to 0.8 using distribution-based approaches (239 estimates; 20 studies), from 0.003 to 0.72 using anchor-based approaches (189 estimates; 43 studies), and from 0.038 to 0.082 using instrument-defined approaches (4 estimates; 1 study). For the EQ-5D-5L, MID estimates ranged from 0.023 to 0.115 using distribution-based approaches (17 estimates; 12 studies), from 0.01 to 0.41 using anchor-based approaches (97 estimates; 15 studies), and from 0.037 to 0.101 using instrument-defined approaches (62 estimates; 8 studies). For the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), MID estimates ranged from 0.96 to 16.6 using distribution-based approaches (87 estimates; 14 studies), and from 0.42 to 51.0 using anchor-based approaches (84 estimates; 24 studies). MID estimates varied by underlying clinical conditions, baseline scores, and direction of change.

Conclusions: A wide range of MID estimates for EQ-5D instruments were identified, highlighting the variability of MID across populations, estimation methods, direction of change, baseline scores, and EQ-5D versions. These factors should be carefully considered when selecting an appropriate MID for interpreting EQ-5D scores.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
期刊最新文献
Value Framework Based on Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis for Assessment of New Health Technologies under Universal Healthcare Coverage System in Taiwan. Modelling the potential health, health economic and health inequality impact of a large-scale rollout of the Drink Less app in England. Prescription Medication Use and Expenditure of Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Reporting Uncertainty Around Health State Values: A Standard Method and Worked Example. A Systematic Literature Review of Important and Meaningful Differences in the EQ-5D index and visual analogue scale scores.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1