Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Dec;36(12):2090-3.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-010-1979-1. Epub 2010 Aug 6.

Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting

Tarja Vainiola  1 , Ville Pettilä, Risto P Roine, Pirjo Räsänen, Anne M Rissanen, Harri Sintonen
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of two utility instruments, the EQ-5D and the 15D, in the critical care setting

Tarja Vainiola et al. Intensive Care Med. 2010 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: Reliable measures are required for proper cost-utility analysis after critical care. No gold standard is available, but the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument (HRQoL) has been proposed. Our aim was to compare the EQ-5D with another utility measure, the 15D, after critical illness.

Methods: A total of 929 patients filled in both the EQ-5D and 15D HRQoL instruments 6 and 12 months after treatment at an intensive care or high-dependency unit. The difference in the medians and distributions of the scores of the instruments was tested with Wilcoxon signed-rank test and their association with Spearman rank correlation. Discriminatory power was compared by the ceiling effect and agreement between the instruments regarding the direction of the minimal clinically important change in the HRQoL scores between 6 and 12 months was tested with the McNemar-Bowker test and Cohen's kappa.

Results: The utility scores produced by the instruments and their distributions were different. Agreement between the instruments was only moderate. The 15D appeared more sensitive than the EQ-5D both in terms of discriminatory power and responsiveness to clinically important change.

Conclusion: The agreement between the two utility measures was only moderate. The choice of the instrument may have a substantial effect on cost-utility results. Our results suggest that the 15D performs well after critical illness, but further large cohort studies comparing different utility instruments in this patient population are warranted before the gold standard for utility measurement can be announced.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The distributions of the EQ-5D and 15D scores at 6 months
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Kaarlola A, Pettilä V, Kekki P. Quality of life 6 years after intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1294–1299. doi: 10.1007/s00134-003-1849-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Frick S, Uehlinger DE, Zürcher Zenklusen RM. Assessment of former ICU patients’ quality of life: comparison of different quality-of-life measures. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:1405–1410. doi: 10.1007/s00134-002-1434-z. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lamer C, Harboun M, Knani L, Moreau D, Tric L, LeGuillou J-L, Gasquet I, Moreau T. Quality of life after complicated elective surgery requiring intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1594–1601. doi: 10.1007/s00134-004-2260-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dowdy D, Eid M, Sedrakyan A, Mendeze-Tellez P, Pronovost P, Herrdige M, Needham D. Quality of life in adult survivors of critical illness: a systematic review of the literature. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:611–620. doi: 10.1007/s00134-005-2592-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kaarlola A, Tallgren M, Pettilä V. Long term survival, quality of life and quality-adjusted life-years among critically ill elderly patients. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2116–2120. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000227656.31911.2E. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types