Comparing measurement properties of EQ-5D and SF-6D in East and South-East Asian populations: a scoping review

References

• Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian X, Tan RL, Chuang LH, et al. Measurement properties of commonly used generic preference-based measures in East and South-East Asia: a systematic review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(2):159–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R. EuroQol:the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Xie S, He X, et al. Valuation of SF-6Dv2 health states in China using time trade-off and discrete-choice experiment with a duration dimension. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(5):521–535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameri H, Safari H, Poder T. Exploring the consistency of the SF-6Dv2 in a breast cancer population. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(5):1017–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahvijou A, Safari H, Ameri H. Psychometric properties of the SF-6Dv2 in an Iranian breast cancer population [published correction appears in breast cancer. 2021 Mar 26;:]. Breast Cancer. 2021;28(4):937–943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, et al. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 health survey. J Clin Epidemol. 1998;51(11):1115–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GG L, Hu S, Wu J, et al. China guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluations 2020. Beijing China: China Market Press; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program (Thailand). 2014 [cited 2022 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.hitap.net/documents/168738
   Google Scholar
• Drug evaluation methods and process guide. College of Medicine Building. 2019 [cited 2022 Aug 23].Available from: https://www.ace-hta.gov.sg/docs/default-source/process-methods/ace-methods-and-process-guide-for-drug-evaluation-(20-dec-2019)
   Google Scholar
• Bae S, Lee S, Bae EY, et al. Korean guidelines for pharmacoeconomic evaluation (second and updated version): consensus and compromise. Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(4):257–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, et al. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(1):5–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan MA. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(8):2045–2053.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng LJ, Tan RL, Luo N. Measurement properties of the EQ VAS around the globe: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Value Health. 2021;24(8):1223–1233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. Published 2021 Mar 29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EA C, Jerez A, Vernal R, et al. The therapeutic potential of regulatory T lymphocytes in periodontitis: a systematic review. J Periodontal Res. 2019;54(3):207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(1):58–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favers P, David M. Quality of Life. 2nd. England: Wiley; 2007. 89–100.
   Google Scholar
• Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284–290.
   Google Scholar
• MM MUKAKA. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moradi N, Poder TG, Safari H, et al. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared with EQ-5D-3L in cancer patients in Iran. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1052155. Published 2022 Dec 9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S178–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacob C. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Taylor and Francis; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne RH, Hawthorne G, Lew EA, et al. Quality of life assessment in the community-dwelling elderly: validation of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) Instrument and comparison with the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(2):138–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, et al. Relative responsiveness of condition-specific and generic health status measures in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Nov;48(11):1369–1378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunillera O, Tresserras R, Rajmil L, et al. Discriminative capacity of the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and SF-12 as measures of health status in population health survey. Qual Life Res. 2010 Aug;19(6):853–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research [published correction appears in j chiropr med. 2017 dec;16(4):346]. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giavarina D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015;25(2):141–151. Published 2015 Jun 5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao FL, Yue M, Yang H, et al. Validation and comparison of EuroQol and short form 6D in chronic prostatitis patients. Value Health. 2010;13(5):649–656.
   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;12:156. Published 2014 Oct 25
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu RH, Dong D, Luo N, et al. Evaluating the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D among patients with haemophilia. Eur J Health Econ. 2021;22(4):547–557.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Li SC, Luo N, et al. Comparison of the EuroQol and short form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):1043–1049.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yang F, Lau T, Lee E, et al. Comparison of the preference-based EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Eur J Health Econ. 2015;16(9):1019–1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SK, Kim SH, Jo MW, et al. Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:32. Published 2015 Mar 9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Fukuda T, Ikeda S, et al. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):707–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Wang M, Liu L, et al. Which approach is better in eliciting health state utilities from breast cancer patients? Evidence from mainland China. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019;28(2):e12965.
   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) [cited 2022 Oct 3]. nopagination. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1137-6
   Google Scholar
• Sun CY, Liu Y, Zhou LR, et al. Comparison of EuroQol-5D-3L and short form-6d utility scores in family caregivers of colorectal cancer patients: a cross-sectional survey in China. Front Public Health. 2021;9:742332. Published 2021 Sep 29
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung YY, Png ME, Wee HL, et al. of EuroQol-5D and short form-6D utility scores in multiethnic Asian patients with psoriatic arthritis: a cross-sectional study. J Rheumatol. 2013;40(6):859–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangwanrattanakul K. A comparison of measurement properties between UK SF-6D and English EQ-5D-5L and Thai EQ-5D-5L value sets in general Thai population. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;21(4):765–774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie S, Wang D, Wu J, et al. Comparison of the measurement properties of SF-6Dv2 and EQ-5D-5L in a Chinese population health survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2022;20(1):96. Published 2022 Jun 16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin H, Wang B, Gao Q, et al. Comparison between EQ-5D and SF-6D utility in rural residents of Jiangsu Province, China. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e41550.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao L, Liu X, Liu D, et al. Comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D in the general population of Chengdu city in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(11):e14719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakthong P, Munpan W, Head-to-Head A. 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
• Thaweethamcharoen T, Noparatayaporn P, Sritippayawan S, et al. of EQ-5D-5L, VAS, and SF-6D in Thai Patients on Peritoneal Dialysis. Value Health Reg Issues. 2019;18:59–64.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Andayani T.M., Kristina S.A., Hidayaturahmah R. Comparison and validation of EuroQol-5 Dimension level and Short Form-6 Dimension in cataract patients. Pharm. Educ. 2022;22(2):236-41. [cited 2022 Oct 8].https://doi.org/10.46542/pe.2022.222.236241
   Google Scholar
• Zhang F, Yang Y, Huang T, et al. Is there a difference between EQ-5D and SF-6D in the clinical setting? a comparative study on the quality of life measured by AIMS2-SF, EQ-5D and SF-6D scales for osteoarthritis patients. Int J Rheum Dis. 2018;21(6):1185–1192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdin E, Chong SA, Seow E, et al. A comparison of the reliability and validity of SF-6D, EQ-5D and HUI3 utility measures in patients with schizophrenia and patients with depression in Singapore. Psychiatry Res. 2019;274:400–408.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung PWH, Wong CKH, Cheung JPY. Differential Psychometric Properties of EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level and Short-Form 6-Dimension Utility Measures in Low Back Pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(11):E679–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Wong CK, McGhee SM, et al. A comparison between the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). PLoS One. Published 2014 Nov 7. 2014;9(11):e112389.
   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
• Turner N, Campbell J, Peters TJ, et al. A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients.Health. Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PWH C, CKH W, JPY C. Differential psychometric properties of euroqol 5-dimension 5-level and short-form 6-dimension utility measures in low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(11):E679–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nayak NR, Stephen JH, Piazza MA, et al. Quality of life in patients undergoing spine surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Global Spine J. 2019;9(1):67–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahvijou A, Safari H, Ameri H. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D-5L with two versions of the SF-6Dv2 in patients with breast cancer. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2020;20:183–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MF J, Gj B, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan Y, Xiao Y, Chen X, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of health utility estimates in chronic spontaneous urticaria. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020;7:543290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zare F, Ameri H, Madadizadeh F, et al. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-3L (a generic preference-based instrument used for calculating quality-adjusted life -years) for patients with type 2 diabetes in Iran. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2021;15(1):319–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowden A, Fox-Rushby JA. A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(7):1289–1306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(4):323–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zannetos S, Zachariadou T, Zachariades A, et al. The economic burden of adult asthma in Cyprus; a prevalence-based cost of illness study. BMC Public Health. 2017 Mar 16;17(1):262.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Luo N, Ng WY, Lau PN, et al. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D and 8-item Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) in a 4-year follow-up study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):565–569.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown CC, Tilford JM, Payakachat N, et al. Measuring health spillover effects in caregivers of children with autism spectrum disorder: a comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and SF-6D. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(4):609–620.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rencz F, Janssen MF. Analyzing the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression composite domains and the meaning of discomfort in the EQ-5d: a mixed-methods study [published online ahead of print, 2022 Aug 13]. Value Health. 2022;S1098-3015(22): 02067–8.
   Google Scholar
• Pan CW, He JY, Zhu YB, et al. Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients [published online ahead of print, 2022 Sep 9]. Eur J Health Econ. 2022;10. DOI:10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0.
   Google Scholar