Dataset Information

Validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings: a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing amalgam removal.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Evidence of health utility changes in patients who suffer from longstanding health complaints attributed to dental amalgam fillings are limited. The change in health utility outcomes enables calculating quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and facilitates the comparison with other health conditions. The purpose of this study was to estimate the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utilities following removal of dental amalgam fillings in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings, and examine the ability of these instruments to detect minimally important changes over time.

Methods

Patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms, which they attributed to dental amalgam restorations, were recruited to a prospective cohort study in Norway. Two health state utility instruments, EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, as well as self-reported general health complaints (GHC-index) and visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) were administered to all patients (n = 32) at baseline and at follow-up. The last two were used as criteria measures. Concurrent and predictive validities were examined using correlation coefficients. Responsiveness was assessed by the effect size (ES), standardized response mean (SRM), and relative efficiency. Minimally important change (MIC) was examined by distribution and anchor-based approaches.

Results

Concurrent validity of the EQ-5D-5L was similar to that of SF-6D utility. EQ-5D-5L was more responsive than SF-6D: the ES were 0.73 and 0.58 for EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, respectively; SRM were 0.76 and 0.67, respectively. EQ-5D-5L was more efficient than SF-6D in detecting changes, but both were less efficient compared to criteria-based measures. The estimated MIC of EQ-5D-5L value set was 0.108 and 0.118 based on distribution and anchor-based approaches, respectively. The corresponding values for SF-6D were 0.048 and 0.064, respectively.

Conclusions

In patients with health complaints attributed to dental amalgam undergoing amalgam removal, both EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D showed reasonable concurrent and predictive validity and acceptable responsiveness. The EQ-5D-5L utility appears to be more responsive compared to SF-6D. Trial registration The research was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov., NCT01682278. Registered 10 September 2012, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01682278 .

SUBMITTER: Lamu AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8052827 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Assessments of health-related quality of life and particularly utility values are important components of health economic analyses. Several instruments have been developed to measure utilities. However no consensus has emerged regarding the most appropriate instrument within a therapeutic area such as chronic pain. The study compared two instruments - EQ-5D and SF-6D - for their performance and validity in patients with chronic pain.Pooled data from three randomised, controlled clinical trials with two active treatment groups were used. The included patients suffered from osteoarthritis knee pain or low back pain. Differences between the utility measures were compared in terms of mean values at baseline and endpoint, Bland-Altman analysis, correlation between the dimensions, construct validity, and responsiveness.The analysis included 1977 patients, most with severe pain on the Numeric Rating Scale. The EQ-5D showed a greater mean change from baseline to endpoint compared with the SF-6D (0.43 to 0.58 versus 0.59 to 0.64). Bland-Altman analysis suggested the difference between two measures depended on the health status of a patient. Spearmans rank correlation showed moderate correlation between EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions. Construct validity showed both instruments could differentiate between patient subgroups with different severities of adverse events and analgesic efficacies but larger differences were detected with the EQ-5D. Similarly, when anchoring the measures to a disease-specific questionnaire - Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) - both questionnaires could differentiate between WOMAC severity levels but the EQ-5D showed greater differences. Responsiveness was also higher with the EQ-5D and for the subgroups in which improvements in health status were expected or when WOMAC severity level was reduced the improvements with EQ-5D were higher than with SF-6D.This analysis showed that the mean EQ-5D scores were lower than mean SF-6D scores in patients with chronic pain. EQ-5D seemed to have higher construct validity and responsiveness in these patients.

Project description:PurposeTo measure health-related quality of life in the Chinese population using three universal health utility scales (CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D) and to compare the differences in the results obtained by the different scales to provide a reference for future utility on health-related quality of life in the Chinese population.MethodsAccording to the Chinese population's distribution area, gender, and age, quota sampling was conducted. Three scales, CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D, whose results were self-reported, were collected in succession after collecting respondents' demographic information. The health utility value and floor/ceiling effect were explained. Bland-Altman was used to evaluate the consistency, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the discriminative validity of the scale.ResultsThe mean utility values of the CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D scales, respectively, were 0.891, 0.927, and 0.841. The floor effect did not appear in any of the three scales, but the ceiling effect did, and the EQ-5D-5L ceiling effect was the most severe. The limits of the agreement interval for CQ-11D versus EQ-5D-5L in the total sample population were (-0.245,0.172); for CQ-11D versus SF-6D, they were (- 0.256,0.354); and for EQ-5D-5L versus SF-6D, they were (-0.199,0.371). The consistency of the three scales is satisfactory overall. In the total population, the intraclass correlation coefficient between CQ-11D and EQ-5D-5L was 0.709, while EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were 0.0.565 and that between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was 0.472. According to the subject operation curve results, the area under the curve for the total sample population of CQ-11D was 0.746, EQ-5D-5L was 0.669, and SF-6D was 0.734.ConclusionThe CQ-11D is inferior to the EQ-5D-5L, but superior to the SF-6D. There is a strong correlation between the health utility values of the total population as measured by the three scales and those of the healthy population. The CQ-11D scale is the most sensitive to differences between populations and diseases.