Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants in a rand...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2009-07-01
|
| Series: | Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation |
| Online Access: | http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/12 |
| _version_ | 1818857267326353408 |
|---|---|
| author | Avery Anthony J Sach Tracey H Barton Garry R Doherty Michael Jenkinson Claire Muir Kenneth R |
| author_facet | Avery Anthony J Sach Tracey H Barton Garry R Doherty Michael Jenkinson Claire Muir Kenneth R |
| author_sort | Avery Anthony J |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by <20%, and iii) improved by ≥20%).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p < 0.001), but not the SF-6D.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T08:37:41Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5294283cc5db4e72a02ec0a5a733f6a0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1478-7547 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T08:37:41Z |
| publishDate | 2009-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation |
| spelling | doaj.art-5294283cc5db4e72a02ec0a5a733f6a02022-12-21T20:29:01ZengBMCCost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation1478-75472009-07-01711210.1186/1478-7547-7-12Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee painAvery Anthony JSach Tracey HBarton Garry RDoherty MichaelJenkinson ClaireMuir Kenneth R<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the practicality, validity and responsiveness of using each of two utility measures (the EQ-5D and SF-6D) to measure the benefits of alleviating knee pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants in a randomised controlled trial, which was designed to compare four different interventions for people with self-reported knee pain, were asked to complete the EQ-5D, SF-6D, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at both pre- and post-intervention. For both utility measures, we assessed their practicality (completion rate), construct validity (ability to discriminate between baseline WOMAC severity levels), and responsiveness (ability to discriminate between three groups: those whose total WOMAC score, i) did not improve, ii) improved by <20%, and iii) improved by ≥20%).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The EQ-5D was completed by 97.7% of the 389 participants, compared to 93.3% for the SF-6D. Both the EQ-5D and SF-6D were able to discriminate between participants with different levels of WOMAC severity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D change was -0.036 for group i), 0.091 for group ii), and 0.127 for group iii), compared to 0.021, 0.023 and 0.053 on the SF-6D. These change scores were significantly different according to the EQ-5D (p < 0.001), but not the SF-6D.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The EQ-5D and SF-6D had largely comparable practicality and construct validity. However, in contrast to the EQ-5D, the SF-6D could not discriminate between those who improved post-intervention, and those who did not. This suggests that it is more appropriate to use the EQ-5D in future cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions which are designed to alleviate knee pain.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN93206785</p>http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/12 |
| spellingShingle | Avery Anthony J Sach Tracey H Barton Garry R Doherty Michael Jenkinson Claire Muir Kenneth R Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation |
| title | Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| title_full | Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| title_fullStr | Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| title_short | Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| title_sort | comparing the performance of the eq 5d and sf 6d when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain |
| url | http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/12 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT averyanthonyj comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain AT sachtraceyh comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain AT bartongarryr comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain AT dohertymichael comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain AT jenkinsonclaire comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain AT muirkennethr comparingtheperformanceoftheeq5dandsf6dwhenmeasuringthebenefitsofalleviatingkneepain |