nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

05.07.2018

Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 11/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To study the psychometric properties, including reliability, validity and responsiveness, of the Spanish EQ-5D-5L questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

We included 758 patients with hip or knee OA who completed the EQ-5D-5L and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline, of whom 644 also did 6 months later. The EQ-5D-5L contains five questions from which a utility index is derived. The WOMAC covers three dimensions: pain, stiffness and physical function. Floor and ceiling effects were calculated. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity was tested using the Spearman correlation coefficient between EQ-5D-5L and WOMAC. We examined known-groups validity by comparing the EQ-5D-5L between subgroups defined by WOMAC scores using ANOVA or the Kruskal–Wallis test. Effect sizes were calculated to assess responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was estimated.

Results

The EQ-5D-5L showed minimal floor and ceiling effects (< 3%). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86. The EQ-5D-5L index was strongly correlated with WOMAC pain and function scores (− 0.688 and − 0.782). Patients with higher WOMAC scores had significantly (p < 0.0001) lower EQ-5D-5L index. The 20.19% had hip or knee replacement during the follow-up. Effect sizes were small among non-surgical patients, but > 0.80 among “improved” surgical patients, being the MCID for improvement 0.32 points.

Conclusions

The results support the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, overcoming the limitations of the EQ-5D-3L in these patients. Therefore, the EQ-5D-5L could be very useful as an outcome measure, at least in patients with hip or knee OA.

Mahon, J. L., Bourne, R. B., Rorabeck, C. H., Feeny, D. H., Stitt, L., & Webster-Bogaert, S. (2002). Health-related quality of life and mobility of patients awaiting elective total hip arthroplasty: A prospective study. CMAJ, 167, 1115–1121.PubMedPubMedCentral

Núñez, M., Lozano, L., Núñez, E., Segur, J. M., Sastre, S., Macule, F., et al. (2009). Total knee replacement and health-related quality of life: Factors influencing long-term outcomes. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 61, 1062–1069.CrossRef

Cushnaghan, J., Coggon, D., Reading, I., Croft, P., Byng, P., Cox, K., et al. (2007). Long-term outcome following total hip arthroplasty: A controlled longitudinal study. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 57, 1375–1380.CrossRef

Rat, A. C., Guillemin, F., Osnowycz, G., Delagoutte, J. P., Cuny, C., Mainard, D., et al. (2010). Total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis: Mid- and long-term quality of life. Arthritis Care & Research, 62, 54–62.CrossRef

Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Arostegui, I., Bilbao, A., Armendariz, P., Lafuente, I., et al. (2008). Prevalence of symptoms of knee or hip joints in older adults from the general population. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 329–336.CrossRef

Kaufman, S. (2001). The emerging role of health-related quality of life: Data in clinical research, part 2. Clinical Research, 1, 38–43.

Guyatt, G. H., Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. J., Feeny, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: A taxonomy and review. CMAJ, 140, 1441–1448.PubMedPubMedCentral

Brazier, J., Ratcliffe, J., Salomon, J. A., & Tsuchiya, A. (2007). Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37, 53–72.CrossRef

10.

Dolan, P. (1997). Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Medical Care, 35, 1095–1108.CrossRef

11.

Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddart, G. L. (2005). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press.

12.

EuroQoL Group. (1990). EuroQol—A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.CrossRef

13.

Brazier, J., Roberts, J., Tsuchiya, A., & Busschbach, J. (2004). A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Economics, 13, 873–884.CrossRef

14.

Conner-Spady, B. L., Marshall, D. A., Bohm, E., Dunbar, M. J., Loucks, L., Al, K. A., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L in patients with osteoarthritis referred for hip and knee replacement. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1775–1784.CrossRef

15.

Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. S., Golicki, D., Gudex, C., Niewada, M., Scalone, L., et al. (2013). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: A multi-country study. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1717–1727.CrossRef

16.

Johnson, J. A., & Pickard, A. S. (2000). Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada. Medical Care, 38, 115–121.CrossRef

17.

Sullivan, P. W., Lawrence, W. F., & Ghushchyan, V. (2005). A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Care, 43, 736–749.CrossRef

18.

Fransen, M., & Edmonds, J. (1999). Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology, 38, 807–813.CrossRef

19.

Ostendorf, M., van Stel, H. F., Buskens, E., Schrijvers, A. J., Marting, L. N., Verbout, A. J., et al. (2004). Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 86, 801–808.CrossRef

20.

Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., et al. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life ResearchQuality of Life Research, 20, 1727–1736.CrossRef

21.

Hinz, A., Kohlmann, T., Stobel-Richter, Y., Zenger, M., & Brahler, E. (2014). The quality of life questionnaire EQ-5D-5L: Psychometric properties and normative values for the general German population. Quality of Life Research, 23, 443–447.CrossRef

22.

Kim, T. H., Jo, M. W., Lee, S. I., Kim, S. H., & Chung, S. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in the general population of South Korea. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2245–2253.CrossRef

23.

Yfantopoulos, J. N., & Chantzaras, A. E. (2016). Validation and comparison of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in Greece. Eur J Health Econ, 18, 519–531.CrossRef

24.

Buchholz, I., Thielker, K., Feng, Y. S., Kupatz, P., & Kohlmann, T. (2015). Measuring changes in health over time using the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: A head-to-head comparison of measurement properties and sensitivity to change in a German inpatient rehabilitation sample. Quality of Life Research, 24, 829–835.CrossRef

25.

Cheung, P. W., Wong, C. K., Samartzis, D., Luk, K. D., Lam, C. L., Cheung, K. M., et al. (2016). Psychometric validation of the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) in Chinese patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, 11, 19.CrossRef

26.

Garcia-Gordillo, M., Pozo-Cruz, D., Adsuar, B., Sanchez-Martinez, J. C., F. I., & bellan-Perpinan, J. M. (2014). Validation and comparison of 15-D and EQ-5D-5L instruments in a Spanish Parkinson’s disease population sample. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1315–1326.CrossRef

27.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlinska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke. Quality of Life Research, 24, 845–850.CrossRef

28.

Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Karlinska, A., Buczek, J., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., et al. (2015). Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Quality of Life Research, 24, 1555–1563.CrossRef

29.

Jia, Y. X., Cui, F. Q., Li, L., Zhang, D. L., Zhang, G. M., Wang, F. Z., et al. (2014). Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2355–2363.CrossRef

30.

Kim, S. H., Kim, H. J., Lee, S. I., & Jo, M. W. (2012). Comparing the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in cancer patients in Korea. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1065–1073.CrossRef

31.

Lee, C. F., Luo, N., Ng, R., Wong, N. S., Yap, Y. S., Lo, S. K., et al. (2013). Comparison of the measurement properties between a short and generic instrument, the 5-level EuroQoL Group’s 5-dimension (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and a longer and disease-specific instrument, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), in Asian breast cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1745–1751.CrossRef

32.

Lee, C. F., Ng, R., Luo, N., Wong, N. S., Yap, Y. S., Lo, S. K., et al. (2013). The English and Chinese versions of the five-level EuroQoL Group’s five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were valid and reliable and provided comparable scores in Asian breast cancer patients. Support Care Cancer, 21, 201–209.CrossRef

33.

Lin, F. J., Pickard, A. S., Krishnan, J. A., Joo, M. J., Au, D. H., Carson, S. S., et al. (2014). Measuring health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Properties of the EQ-5D-5L and PROMIS-43 short form. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14, 78.CrossRef

34.

Pattanaphesaj, J., & Thavorncharoensap, M. (2015). Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13, 14.CrossRef

35.

Sakthong, P., Sonsa-Ardjit, N., Sukarnjanaset, P., & Munpan, W. (2015). Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in Thai patients with chronic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 24, 3015–3022.CrossRef

36.

Scalone, L., Ciampichini, R., Fagiuoli, S., Gardini, I., Fusco, F., Gaeta, L., et al. (2013). Comparing the performance of the standard EQ-5D 3L with the new version EQ-5D 5L in patients with chronic hepatic diseases. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1707–1716.CrossRef

37.

Tran, B. X., Ohinmaa, A., & Nguyen, L. T. (2012). Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 10, 132.CrossRef

38.

Yfantopoulos, J., Chantzaras, A., & Kontodimas, S. (2017). Assessment of the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L instruments in psoriasis. Archives of Dermatological Research, 309, 357–370.CrossRef

39.

Conner-Spady, B. L., Marshall, D. A., Bohm, E., Dunbar, M. J., & Noseworthy, T. W. (2018). Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1311–1322CrossRef

40.

Ramos-Goñi, J. M., Craig, B. M., Oppe, M., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., Pinto-Prades, J. L., Luo, N., et al. (2017). Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health, 21(5), 596–604CrossRef

41.

Guyatt, G. H., Osoba, D., Wu, A. W., Wyrwich, K. W., Norman, G. R., & Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. (2002). Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–383.CrossRef

42.

Bellamy, N., Buchanan, W. W., Goldsmith, C. H., Campbell, J., & Stitt, L. W. (1988). Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Clinical Rheumatology, 15, 1833–1840.

43.

Escobar, A., Quintana, J. M., Bilbao, A., Azkarate, J., & Guenaga, J. I. (2002). Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clinical Rheumatology, 21, 466–471.CrossRef

44.

Escobar, A., Quintana, J. M., Bilbao, A., Arostegui, I., Lafuente, I., & Vidaurreta, I. (2007). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 15, 273–280.CrossRef

45.

Quintana, J. M., Escobar, A., Bilbao, A., Arostegui, I., Lafuente, I., & Vidaurreta, I. (2005). Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage, 13, 1076–1083.CrossRef

46.

Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873.CrossRef

47.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRef

48.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

49.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.

50.

Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46, 1417–1432.CrossRef

51.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRef

52.

Hays, R. D., & Woolley, J. M. (2000). The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. How meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics, 18, 419–423.CrossRef

53.

Schmitt, J. S., & Di Fabio, R. P. (2004). Reliable change and minimum important difference (MID) proportions facilitated group responsiveness comparisons using individual threshold criteria. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57, 1008–1018.CrossRef

54.

Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (2002). Using the standard error of measurement to identify important changes on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 11, 1–7.CrossRef

55.

de Boer, M. R., de Vet, H. C., Terwee, C. B., Moll, A. C., Volker-Dieben, H. J., & van Rens, G. H. (2005). Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1260–1268.CrossRef

56.

Brazier, J. E., Harper, R., Munro, J., Walters, S. J., & Snaith, M. L. (1999). Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology, 38, 870–877.CrossRef

57.

Walters, S. J., & Brazier, J. E. (2005). Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1523–1532.CrossRef

58.

Terwee, C. B., Dekker, F. W., Mourits, M. P., Gerding, M. N., Baldeschi, L., Kalmann, R., et al. (2001). Interpretation and validity of changes in scores on the Graves’ ophthalmopathy quality of life questionnaire (GO-QOL) after different treatments. Clinical Endocrinology (Oxford), 54, 391–398.CrossRef

Titel: Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness
Publikationsdatum: 05.07.2018
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1929-x

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2018

Evaluation of opioid use among patients with back disorders and arthritis

Factor structure of the Q-LES-Q short form in an enrolled mental health clinic population

Association of religiosity and spirituality with quality of life in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review

Correction to: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of eight pediatric PROMIS® item banks into Spanish and German

Testing alternative regression models to predict utilities: mapping the QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D

Comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between ileal conduit diversion and orthotopic neobladder based on validated questionnaires: a systematic review and meta-analysis