We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
The EQ-5D-5L is More Discriminative Than the EQ-5D-3L in Patients with Diabetes in Singapore.
Value in Health Regional Issues 2016 May
OBJECTIVES: To compare the discriminative power of the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L [5L]) and its three-level version (EQ-5D-3L [3L]) in patients with diabetes in Singapore.
METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-completed the two versions of the EQ-5D in the clinic. The 3L index score was calculated from the Singapore 3L value set, whereas the 5L index score was mapped from the 5L index score using an interim scoring. The discriminative power of the two EQ-5D indices was assessed in terms of their relative efficiency (RE) in differentiating patients with T2DM with and without one of eight clinical conditions. The efficiency of the two EQ-5D classification systems was evaluated using the Shannon's index (H׳) and in terms of ceiling effects.
RESULTS: A total of 121 patients with T2DM provided data for this study. The 3L score was systematically higher than the 5L score for patients with T2DM with a condition and systematically lower for the patients without a condition, with the mean differences being 0.005 and -0.011, respectively. The 5L index score showed higher RE in seven of eight clinical conditions (mean RE 1.87). The 5L classification system had higher H׳ in all dimensions: mobility (1.17 vs. 0.70), self-care (0.57 vs. 0.41), usual activities (1.01 vs. 0.72), pain/discomfort (1.47 vs. 1.02), and anxiety/depression (1.36 vs. 1.10). The overall ceiling effects decreased from 47.9% (3L) to 38.8% (5L).
CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L in patients with T2DM in Singapore, supporting the use of EQ-5D-5L in the population.
METHODS: A consecutive sample of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) self-completed the two versions of the EQ-5D in the clinic. The 3L index score was calculated from the Singapore 3L value set, whereas the 5L index score was mapped from the 5L index score using an interim scoring. The discriminative power of the two EQ-5D indices was assessed in terms of their relative efficiency (RE) in differentiating patients with T2DM with and without one of eight clinical conditions. The efficiency of the two EQ-5D classification systems was evaluated using the Shannon's index (H׳) and in terms of ceiling effects.
RESULTS: A total of 121 patients with T2DM provided data for this study. The 3L score was systematically higher than the 5L score for patients with T2DM with a condition and systematically lower for the patients without a condition, with the mean differences being 0.005 and -0.011, respectively. The 5L index score showed higher RE in seven of eight clinical conditions (mean RE 1.87). The 5L classification system had higher H׳ in all dimensions: mobility (1.17 vs. 0.70), self-care (0.57 vs. 0.41), usual activities (1.01 vs. 0.72), pain/discomfort (1.47 vs. 1.02), and anxiety/depression (1.36 vs. 1.10). The overall ceiling effects decreased from 47.9% (3L) to 38.8% (5L).
CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D-5L is more discriminative than the EQ-5D-3L in patients with T2DM in Singapore, supporting the use of EQ-5D-5L in the population.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app