Limits...
A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D.

Kularatna S, Whitty JA, Johnson NW, Jayasinghe R, Scuffham PA - Health Qual Life Outcomes (2016)

Bottom Line: The EQ-5D-3 L showed better discrimination than EORTC-8D with higher effect sizes.There were higher ceiling effects observed in the EQ-5D-3 L.The EQ-5D-3 L demonstrated better discrimination than the EORTC-8D.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Nathan Campus, Griffith University , 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, 4111, Queensland, Australia. s.kularatna@griffith.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: It has been suggested that the EQ-5D-3 L preference-based measure of health outcome lacks sensitivity to discriminate between health states in cancer patients. An alternative approach is to use a disease (cancer) specific preference-based measure, such as the EORTC-8D. A limited number of comparisons have been made between generic and disease specific preference-based measures. The aim of this study was to compare the utility scores from the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D in a group of patients with oral cancer or with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD).

Methods: Patients (n = 151) with OPMD or oral cancer were recruited consecutively from six hospitals in Sri Lanka. All participants completed both the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC's QLQC-30 instrument. The Sri Lankan EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D scoring algorithms were employed to estimate utility scores. The utility scores from the two instruments were compared for discrimination, responsiveness and correlation.

Results: There were significant differences across the two utility scores. The EQ-5D-3 L showed better discrimination than EORTC-8D with higher effect sizes. There were higher ceiling effects observed in the EQ-5D-3 L. There was poor correlation between the dimensions of the two instruments except for the mobility and physical functions.

Conclusion: The two instruments captured different aspects of quality of life. The EQ-5D-3 L demonstrated better discrimination than the EORTC-8D. In mild conditions EORTC-8D was more responsive and we recommend further validation of this instrument in diverse cancer conditions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Distribution of the EQ-5D and the EORTC-8D utility scores. red: EORTC-8D distribution; blue = EQ-5D-3 L distribution
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940840&req=5

Fig1: Distribution of the EQ-5D and the EORTC-8D utility scores. red: EORTC-8D distribution; blue = EQ-5D-3 L distribution

Mentions: Figure 1 describes the distribution of the utility scores for both MAUIs. The distribution of both the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D utility values were skewed to the right. Of the two, the EQ-5D-3 L shows more skewness and its distribution has more outliers. The lowest utility from the EQ-5D-3 L was −0.72 compared to −0.15 of the EORTC-8D.Fig. 1


A comparison of health state utility values associated with oral potentially malignant disorders and oral cancer in Sri Lanka assessed using the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D.

Kularatna S, Whitty JA, Johnson NW, Jayasinghe R, Scuffham PA - Health Qual Life Outcomes (2016)

Distribution of the EQ-5D and the EORTC-8D utility scores. red: EORTC-8D distribution; blue = EQ-5D-3 L distribution
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940840&req=5

Fig1: Distribution of the EQ-5D and the EORTC-8D utility scores. red: EORTC-8D distribution; blue = EQ-5D-3 L distribution
Mentions: Figure 1 describes the distribution of the utility scores for both MAUIs. The distribution of both the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D utility values were skewed to the right. Of the two, the EQ-5D-3 L shows more skewness and its distribution has more outliers. The lowest utility from the EQ-5D-3 L was −0.72 compared to −0.15 of the EORTC-8D.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: The EQ-5D-3 L showed better discrimination than EORTC-8D with higher effect sizes.There were higher ceiling effects observed in the EQ-5D-3 L.The EQ-5D-3 L demonstrated better discrimination than the EORTC-8D.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Applied Health Economics, School of Medicine, Nathan Campus, Griffith University , 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, 4111, Queensland, Australia. s.kularatna@griffith.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: It has been suggested that the EQ-5D-3 L preference-based measure of health outcome lacks sensitivity to discriminate between health states in cancer patients. An alternative approach is to use a disease (cancer) specific preference-based measure, such as the EORTC-8D. A limited number of comparisons have been made between generic and disease specific preference-based measures. The aim of this study was to compare the utility scores from the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC-8D in a group of patients with oral cancer or with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD).

Methods: Patients (n = 151) with OPMD or oral cancer were recruited consecutively from six hospitals in Sri Lanka. All participants completed both the EQ-5D-3 L and the EORTC's QLQC-30 instrument. The Sri Lankan EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D scoring algorithms were employed to estimate utility scores. The utility scores from the two instruments were compared for discrimination, responsiveness and correlation.

Results: There were significant differences across the two utility scores. The EQ-5D-3 L showed better discrimination than EORTC-8D with higher effect sizes. There were higher ceiling effects observed in the EQ-5D-3 L. There was poor correlation between the dimensions of the two instruments except for the mobility and physical functions.

Conclusion: The two instruments captured different aspects of quality of life. The EQ-5D-3 L demonstrated better discrimination than the EORTC-8D. In mild conditions EORTC-8D was more responsive and we recommend further validation of this instrument in diverse cancer conditions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus