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
. 2022 Dec 9:12:1052155.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1052155. eCollection 2022.

Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared with EQ-5D-3L in cancer patients in Iran

Nasrin Moradi  1 , Thomas G Poder  2   3 , Hossein Safari  4 , Mohammad M Mojahedian  5 , Hosein Ameri  6
Affiliations

Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared with EQ-5D-3L in cancer patients in Iran

Nasrin Moradi et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background and objective: Psychometric evidence to support the validity and reliability of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in cancer patients is limited. This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the EQ-5D-5L (5L) in comparison with EQ-5D-3L (3L) in cancer patients.

Methods: Data of 650 cancer patients were collected through consecutive sampling method from three largest governmental cancer centers in Iran between June 2021 and January 2022. The data were gathered using the 3L, 5L, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) instruments. The 3L and 5L were compared in terms of ceiling effect, discriminatory power, convergent and known-groups validity, relative efficiency, inconsistency, agreement, and reliability.

Results: Compared with the 3L, ceiling effect decreased by 27.86%. Absolute and relative informativity of discriminatory power improved by 45.93% and 22.92% in the 5L, respectively. All convergent validity coefficients with 5L were stronger than with 3L. Both 3L and 5L demonstrated good known-groups validity, and the relative efficiency was higher for 5L in 4 out of 7 patients' characteristics. The two instruments showed low overall inconsistency (1.45%) and 92.57% of the differences of observations between the 3L and 5L were within the 95% limit of agreement. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for 3L and 5L indexes were 0.88 and 0.85, respectively, and kappa coefficients in the 3L dimensions (range=0.66-0.92) were higher than the 5L(range=0.64-0.79).

Conclusions: The 5L demonstrated to be better than the 3L in terms of ceiling effect, inconsistency, discriminatory power, convergent validity, relative efficiency.

Keywords: EQ-5D-3L; EQ-5D-5L; Iran; cancer patients; psychometric properties.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bland–Altman plot of the 3L and 5L index values.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Excellence C. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. National institute of health and care excellence. (2012). - PubMed
    1. Weinstein MC, Torrance G, McGuire A. QALYs: the basics. Value in health. (2009); 12:S5–S9. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00515.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Annals of internal medicine. (1993); 118(8):622–9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yousefi M, Nahvijou A, Sari AA, Ameri H. Mapping QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D-V2 in patients with colorectal and breast cancer from a developing country. Value Health Regional Issues. (2021) 24:57–66. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2020.06.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, van Reenen M, Kennedy-Martin T, Greiner W, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? a review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Economics. (2020) 21(8):1245–57. doi: 10.1007/s10198-020-01195-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources