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

Correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D utility scores
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: Correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D utility scores

Mentions: Figure 2 and Table 6 report the correlations between the two instruments. There is good agreement between the two utility scores for the better health states, but disagreement for severe health conditions (r = 0.69; P < 0.0001). Table 6 presents the correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D dimensions, with those in bold for related dimensions. All correlations between related dimensions are significant (p < 0.05). The highest correlation (0.548) was observed between the mobility and physical function dimensions. The other related dimensions reported low correlations (p > 0.400). The dimensions fatigue, nausea and constipation/diarrhoea of the EORTC-8D did not have any related dimension with the EQ-5D-3 L.Fig. 2


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)

Correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D utility scores
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: Correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D utility scores
Mentions: Figure 2 and Table 6 report the correlations between the two instruments. There is good agreement between the two utility scores for the better health states, but disagreement for severe health conditions (r = 0.69; P < 0.0001). Table 6 presents the correlation between EQ-5D-3 L and EORTC-8D dimensions, with those in bold for related dimensions. All correlations between related dimensions are significant (p < 0.05). The highest correlation (0.548) was observed between the mobility and physical function dimensions. The other related dimensions reported low correlations (p > 0.400). The dimensions fatigue, nausea and constipation/diarrhoea of the EORTC-8D did not have any related dimension with the EQ-5D-3 L.Fig. 2

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