CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 233Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Opioid Use

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

Validity and responsiveness of EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) versus Short Form-6 dimension (SF-6D) questionnaire in chronic pain

Open access
Obradovic, Marko, Lal, Arun, Liedgens, Hiltrud·2013·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
DOI 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110PMC PMC3722016
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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 · 10.1186/1477-7525-11-110

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Bland Altman plot for EQ-5D and SF-6D scores at baseline.
Figure 1 Bland Altman plot for EQ-5D and SF-6D scores at baseline.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions at baseline. (a) Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D dimensions at baseline. (b) Distribution across severity levels of the SF-6D dimensions at baseline.
Figure 2 Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D and SF-6D dimensions at baseline. (a) Distribution across severity levels of the EQ-5D dimensions at baseline. (b) Distribution across severity levels of the SF-6D dimensions at baseline.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in terms of responsiveness. (a) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘none to mild’ at endpoint. (b) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘mild-to-moderate’ at endpoint.
Figure 3 Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in terms of responsiveness. (a) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘none to mild’ at endpoint. (b) Change in utility from different WOMAC categories at baseline to ‘mild-to-moderate’ at endpoint.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 233

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Obradovic, M., Lal, A., & Liedgens, H.
Affiliations
Grünenthal Group (Germany) (DE)
Corresponding author
Liedgens, Hiltrud
ORCID
Liedgens, Hiltrud
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-07-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
110-110
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1477-7525-11-110
PMC
PMC3722016
OpenAlex
W2105957182
Cited by
233
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 3
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
EQ-5D, SF-6D, chronic pain, health-related quality of life, health utility, construct validity, responsiveness, knee osteoarthritis, low back pain, WOMAC, questionnaire comparison
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Low Back Pain, Statistics, Nonparametric, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Chronic Pain

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