Cited by 40Endometriosis Research and TreatmentHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Measuring health-related quality of life in women with endometriosis: comparing the clinimetric properties of the Endometriosis Health Profile-5 (EHP-5) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D)

Open access
Aubry, G., Panel, P., Thiollier, G., Huchon, C., Fauconnier, A.·2017·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Which of the Endometriosis Health Profile-5 (EHP-5) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) is the most efficient to assess quality of life in women suffering from endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although EHP-5 and EQ-5D instruments had an excellent responsiveness, EHP-5 has a better discriminative ability than EQ-5 to measure health-related quality of life (HrQoL). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Proper measurement of HrQoL is important in endometriosis. While many quality of life instruments are available, few have been completely validated in endometriosis. The EHP-5 and the EQ-5D are short and practical scales, which may be useful. Literature is lacking to determine which one is the most suitable in clinical practice or in clinical research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective and observational study conducted between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2013 included a total of 253 consecutive women with proven endometriosis, undergoing medical or surgical treatment, in 2 French tertiary care centers. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Women over 18 years consulting for painful symptoms of at least 3 months' duration or for infertility, with endometriosis proven histologically or radiologically, were requested to fill in the 2 scales before (T0) and 12 months after treatment (T1). Construct validity consisted in testing presupposed relationships between the scales and the characteristics of the patients or the endometriosis. Responsiveness to change was calculated for all patients and in each treatment group. Effect sizes were used according to Cohen's d method. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 216 women filled in completely all the questionnaires at T0 and 133 (61.6%) at T1. EHP-5 and EQ-5D had good discriminative abilities regarding the patients' symptoms, with significant superiority of EHP-5 concerning three of the nine hypotheses. The largest difference was that calculated for the 'intensity of dysmenorrhea' using the Visual Analogic Scale, with respectively effect size from Cohen's d (ES) = 0.86 95% CI (0.54-1.17) for EHP-5 versus 0.48 95% CI (0.16-0.79) for EQ-5D. There were no differences in EHP-5 or in EQ-5D scores between subgroups according to the characteristics of endometriosis. Overall responsiveness was excellent and equivalent for EHP-5 and for EQ-5D, with, respectively, ES = 0.81 95% CI (0.56-1.56) versus ES = 0.95 95% CI (0.68-1.20). In subgroup analyses, EHP-5 was responsive in case of medical treatment with ES = 0.93 95% CI (0.07-1.70), whereas EQ-5D was not, ES = 0.73 95% CI (-0.06-1.47). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study population included patients with symptomatic and mainly severe forms of endometriosis, which may suggest a spectrum bias. The evaluation of responsiveness in case of medical treatment was based on a small number of patients, which limits the interpretation of the difference found between the two scales in this subgroup. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: EHP-5 is a simple, efficient and valid tool for evaluating quality of life in daily practice and also valuable to provide a primary outcome in clinical studies evaluating treatment efficacy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by the Direction à la Recherche Clinique et à l'Innovation of Versailles, France. The authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: None.

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 · 10.1093/humrep/dex057

Cites

52 of 52 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Canis M. Laparoscopic surgery for deep endometriosis. About 118 cases. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2007;1:77-78.
  2. Giudice LC. Clinical practice: endometriosis. N Engl J Med 2010;25: 2389-2398.
  3. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Using quality of life measures in clinical setting. Bmj 2001;7297:1297-1300.
  4. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measure in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;3:S217-S232.
  5. Renouvel F, Fauconnier A, Pilkington H, Panel P. Linguistic adaptation of the Endometriosis Health Profile 5: EHP 5. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2009;5:404-410.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aubry, G., Panel, P., Thiollier, G., Huchon, C., & Fauconnier, A.
Affiliations
  • Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy (FR)
Corresponding author
Fauconnier, A.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2017-04-04
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
1258-1269
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2604469166
Cited by
40
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
endometriosis, health-related quality of life, EQ-5D, clinimetric properties, responsiveness, discriminatory power, construct validity, dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, infertility, questionnaire comparison, French-speaking women, patient-reported outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Anxiety, Combined Modality Therapy, Depression, Endometriosis, Female, Follow-Up Studies, France, Humans, Infertility, Female, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Cohort Studies, Cost of Illness, Pelvic Pain, Young Adult, Tertiary Care Centers

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