Cited by 321Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme

Open access
Feng, Yan, Parkin, David, Devlin, Nancy J.·2014·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Objectives: The study aims to increase knowledge about the performance of the EuroQol-visual analogue scales (EQ-VAS) in the UK NHS patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme, which covers groin hernia, hip and knee replacement and varicose vein surgery, and make suggestions for improved collection, coding and analysis of data. Methods: Four hundred scanned images of matched before-and-after EQ-VAS PROMs responses were selected at random. These were classified according to the different ways in which they were completed. Patient-level PROMs programme data linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for all patients from April 2009 to February 2011 were used to analyse the relationship between the EQ-VAS and the EQ-5D profile, index-weighted profile and condition-specific instruments. The linked PROMs and HES data comprise 331,951 anonymised patient records. Results: A large majority (95 %) of EQ-VAS responses were completed in an unambiguous way, but only a minority (45 %) conformed strictly to the instructions given, posing challenges for data coding. The EQ-VAS data have a predictable and consistent relationship with the EQ-5D profile, although the correlations between the EQ-VAS and other measures of patient-reported health, both before and after surgery and in the change between them, are weak. Conclusions: EQ-VAS data might be improved by providing better guidance on collection and coding. It is argued that the observed differences in results from EQ-VAS and other measures of health reflect the fact that it measures a broader underlying construct of health, arguably providing a means of summarising overall health that is closer to the patient’s perspective.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11136-013-0537-z

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. DH (Department of Health, UK). (2010). Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: Stationery Office.
  2. Hayes, M. H. S., & Patterson, D. G. (1921). Experimental development of the graphic rating method. Psychology Bulletin, 18, 98–99.
  3. Health, Quality. (2010). Internal document. Chesterfield: Quality Health.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 321

Metadata

Authors
Feng, Y., Parkin, D., & Devlin, N. J.
Affiliations
  • Office Of Health Economics (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Devlin, Nancy J.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
977-989
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2158509657
Cited by
319
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
10.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
EQ-VAS, patient-reported outcome measures, EQ-5D, data encoding, groin hernia, total hip arthroplasty, knee arthroplasty, varicose vein surgery, patient-reported health
MeSH terms
United Kingdom, Hernia, Inguinal, Humans, National Health Programs, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, State Medicine, Program Evaluation, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Quality Indicators, Health Care, Patient Outcome Assessment, Visual Analog Scale

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review