Is EQ-5D-5L Better Than EQ-5D-3L Over Time? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Responsiveness of Descriptive Systems and Value Sets from Nine Countries

Mathieu F. Janssen (), Ines Buchholz (), Dominik Golicki () and Gouke J. Bonsel ()
Additional contact information
Mathieu F. Janssen: Erasmus MC
Ines Buchholz: EuroQol Group
Dominik Golicki: Medical University of Warsaw
Gouke J. Bonsel: Erasmus MC

PharmacoEconomics, 2022, vol. 40, issue 11, No 5, 1093 pages

Abstract: Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of EQ-5D-3L (3L) with EQ-5D-5L (5L) descriptive systems and value sets in two independent samples (rehabilitation and stroke patients). Methods Descriptive system results were compared cross-sectionally, and descriptive responsiveness was tested by calculating changed level responses (‘moves’) from baseline to follow-up, proportion of improved patients, Paretian Classification of Health Change (PCHC), and probability of superiority (PS). Responsiveness of values based on nine country-specific value sets was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and standardized effect size (SES). Relative efficiency of 5L over 3L was assessed by calculating ratios of the SRM and SES statistics. Results Descriptive comparisons confirmed earlier evidence and showed a consistent overestimation of health problems in 3L. Descriptive responsiveness improved with 5L in terms of moves per respondent, proportions of improved patients and PS, whereas PCHC showed mixed results. Better value responsiveness statistics were observed for 5L in rehabilitation patients for all value sets. In stroke patients, 3L showed better responsiveness statistics compared with 5L. Relative efficiency results were moderately to strongly better with 5L for rehabilitation, and slightly to moderately better with 3L for stroke. Conclusions Descriptive results were the main driver of 3L–5L responsiveness differences. Responsiveness of 3L was influenced by the ‘confined to bed’ label and the overestimation bias of 3L, which affected all responsiveness results. This may impact quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) estimations, leading to over- or underestimations of QALYs gained, depending on the condition and condition severity. QALY calculations based on 5L data will result in more accurate estimates.

Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-022-01172-4 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:40:y:2022:i:11:d:10.1007_s40273-022-01172-4

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.1007/s40273-022-01172-4

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().