A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Dutch patients with fractures visiting a Fracture Liaison Service

References

• Kanis JA, Johnell O, De Laet C, et al. A meta-analysis of previous fracture and subsequent fracture risk. Bone. 2004;35(2):375–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson H, Siggeirsdóttir K, Harvey NC, et al. Imminent risk of fracture after fracture. Osteoporos Int. 2017;28(3):775–780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanis JA, Johansson H, Odén A, et al. Characteristics of recurrent fractures. Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(8):1747–1757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bikbov MM, Fayzrakhmanov RR, Kazakbaeva GM, et al. Frequency and associated factors of bone fractures in Russians: the Ural Eye and Medical Study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Adachi JD, Ioannidis G, Olszynski WP, et al. The impact of incident vertebral and non-vertebral fractures on health related quality of life in postmenopausal women. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2002;3(1):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li N, van Oostwaard M, van den Bergh JP, et al. Health-related quality of life of patients with a recent fracture attending a fracture liaison service: a 3-year follow-up study. Osteoporos Int. 2022;33(3):577–588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meregaglia M, Cairns J. A systematic literature review of health state utility values in head and neck cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Boonen A, Van Der Heijde D, Landewé R, et al. How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(6):771–777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svedbom A, Borgström F, Hernlund E, et al. Quality of life after hip, vertebral, and distal forearm fragility fractures measured using the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and time-trade-off: results from the ICUROS. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(3):707–716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Ideas at issue whose preferences count? Med Decis Making. 1999;19(4):482–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analogue scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(10):1519–1530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ware JE. SF36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guided. Massachusetts. Nimrod Press Bost. 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Hiligsmann M, Reginster J, Tosteson ANA, et al. Recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in osteoporosis: outcomes of an experts’ consensus meeting organized by the european society for clinical and economic aspects of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and musculoskeletal diseases (ESCEO). Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(1):45–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P, et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health. 2010;13(2):222–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye Z, Sun L, Wang Q. A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5 L and SF-6D in Chinese patients with low back pain. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Meadows K. The construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D, SF-6D and diabetes health profile-18 in type 2 diabetes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vranken L, Wyers CE, van Rietbergen B, et al. The association between prevalent vertebral fractures and bone quality of the distal radius and distal tibia as measured with HR-pQCT in postmenopausal women with a recent non-vertebral fracture at the fracture liaison service. Osteoporos Int. 2019;30(9):1789–1797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolowacz SE, Briggs A, Belozeroff V, et al. Estimating health-state utility for economic models in clinical studies: an ISPOR good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2016;19(6):704–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh M, M. Vermeulen K, M. A. A. Evers S, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016;19(4):343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakota EA, Landersdorfer CB, Nation RL, et al. Personalizing polymyxin B dosing using an adaptive feedback control algorithm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(7):307–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide [M]. London: Cambridge University press; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin. 1992;112(1):155–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, et al. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12(4):349–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman GR, Wyrwich KW, Patrick DL. The mathematical relationship among different forms of responsiveness coefficients. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(5):815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selva-Sevilla C, Ferrara P, Gerónimo-Pardo M. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(4):649–662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P, Munpan W. A head-to-Head comparison of UK SF-6D and Thai and UK EQ-5D-5L value sets in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(5):669–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayah FA, Qiu W, Xie F, et al. Comparative performance of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D index scores in adults with type 2 diabetes. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(8):2057–2066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Han Y, Zhao FL, et al. Validation and comparison of EuroQoL-5 dimension (EQ-5D) and short form-6 dimension (SF-6D) among stable angina patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;4(3):174–184.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, et al. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Khan MA, Iezzi A, et al. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(3):276–291.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adachi JD, Adami S, Gehlbach S, GLOW Investigators, et al. Impact of prevalent fractures on quality of life: baseline results from the global longitudinal study of osteoporosis in women. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(9):806–813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar