Cited by 255Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and ValidationDelphi Technique in Research

Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke

Open access
Golicki, Dominik, Niewada, Maciej, Buczek, Julia, Karlińska, Anna, Kobayashi, Adam, Janssen, M. F., Pickard, A. Simon·2015·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess EQ-5D-5L (5L) validity in patients with acute stroke, in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (3L). METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 408 patients during index hospitalization. We compared 5L and 3L in terms of feasibility, frequency of unique health states, ceiling effect and discriminatory power (informativity). We assessed construct validity in terms of known-groups validity and convergent validity of 5L dimensions with other stroke outcome measures. RESULTS: The overall proportion of patients with acute stroke reporting 'no problems' with 3L-6.1 % was further reduced to 5.6 % with 5L (relative reduction of 8.2 %). The highest improvement in relative discriminatory power, when moving from 3L to 5L, was noticed in pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions (Shannon Evenness Index 0.91 for both 5L dimensions; relative increase 34.4 and 29.1 %, respectively). Known-groups validity tests confirmed prior hypotheses: Health state utilities were lower in following subpopulations-females, patients with high modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score, low Barthel Index (BI) or VAS score, patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracerebral hemorrhage, and when proxy respondent was used. Convergence of EQ-5D-5L dimensions with mRS, BI and EQ VAS was improved or at least the same as for 3L dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the validity of the EQ-5D-5L descriptive system as a generic health outcome measure in patients with acute stroke, demonstrating some psychometric advantages in comparison with EQ-5D-3L.

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/s11136-014-0834-1

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • The EQ-5D-5L had good internal reliability and test-retest reliability across health samples and has been validated in stroke samples.

    “The EQ-5D-5L (Herdman et al., 2011) had good internal reliability (ICC = .57)and testretest reliability (ICC = .69)across health samples (Janssen, Birnie, Haagsma, & Bonsel, 2008) and has been validated in stroke samples (Dorman, Waddell, Slattery, Dennis, & Sandercock, 1997;Golicki et al., 2015).”

    From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as Golicki et al., 2015

  • The EQ-5D-5L part two had test-retest reliability of ICC = .51 across health samples and has been validated in stroke samples.

    “Test-retest reliability was reported as ICC = .51across health samples (Janssen et al., 2008) and has been validated in stroke samples (Dorman et al., 1997;Golicki et al., 2015).”

    From Brief group‐based acceptance and commitment therapy for stroke survivors. (2019) · cites this paper as Golicki et al., 2015

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golicki, D., Niewada, M., Buczek, J., Karlińska, A., Kobayashi, A., Janssen, M. F., & Pickard, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
  • Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology (PL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Golicki, Dominik
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2014-10-28
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
845-850
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2021768440
Cited by
254
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 5
FWCI
20.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L, acute stroke, health-related quality of life, construct validity, known-groups validity, convergent validity, ceiling effect, discriminatory power, proxy respondents, subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, modified Rankin Scale, Barthel Index
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Cerebral Infarction, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Female, Health Status, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Orthotic Devices, Pain, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Subarachnoid Hemorrhage, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Young Adult, Self Report

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