Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer

被引:702
作者
Pickard, A. Simon [1 ]
Neary, Maureen P. [2 ]
Cella, David [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Illinois, Ctr Pharmacoecon Res, Dept Pharm Practice, Coll Pharm, Chicago, IL 60607 USA
[2] GlaxoSmithKline Inc, Global Hlth Outcomes, Collegeville, PA USA
[3] Northwestern Univ, Ctr Outcomes Res & Educ, Evanston Hleathcare, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
[4] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Chicago, IL 60611 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1477-7525-5-70
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Understanding what constitutes an important difference on a HRQL measure is critical to its interpretation. The aim of this study was to provide a range of estimates of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D scores in cancer and to determine if estimates are comparable in lung cancer. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cross-sectional data collected from 534 cancer patients, 50 of whom were lung cancer patients. A range of minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D index-based utility (UK and US) scores and VAS scores were estimated using both anchor-based and distribution-based (1/2 standard deviation and standard error of the measure) approaches. Groups were anchored using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ratings and FACT-G total score-based quintiles. Results: For UK-utility scores, MID estimates based on PS ranged from 0.10 to 0.12 both for all cancers and for lung cancer subgroup. Using FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.09 to 0.10 for all cancers, and 0.07 to 0.08 for lung cancer. For US-utility scores, MIDs ranged from 0.07 to 0.09 grouped by PS for all cancers and for lung cancer; when based on FACT-G quintiles, MIDs were 0.06 to 0.07 in all cancers and 0.05 to 0.06 in lung cancer. MIDs for VAS scores were similar for lung and all cancers, ranging from 8 to 12 (PS) and 7 to 10 (FACT-G quintiles). Discussion: Important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores were similar for all cancers and lung cancer, with the lower end of the range of estimates closer to the MID, i.e. 0.08 for UK-index scores, 0.06 for US-index scores, and 0.07 for VAS scores.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]   THE EUROPEAN-ORGANIZATION-FOR-RESEARCH-AND-TREATMENT-OF-CANCER QLQ-C30 - A QUALITY-OF-LIFE INSTRUMENT FOR USE IN INTERNATIONAL CLINICAL-TRIALS IN ONCOLOGY [J].
AARONSON, NK ;
AHMEDZAI, S ;
BERGMAN, B ;
BULLINGER, M ;
CULL, A ;
DUEZ, NJ ;
FILIBERTI, A ;
FLECHTNER, H ;
FLEISHMAN, SB ;
DEHAES, JCJM ;
KAASA, S ;
KLEE, M ;
OSOBA, D ;
RAZAVI, D ;
ROFE, PB ;
SCHRAUB, S ;
SNEEUW, K ;
SULLIVAN, M ;
TAKEDA, F .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 1993, 85 (05) :365-376
[2]   Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales [J].
Cella, D ;
Eton, DT ;
Lai, JS ;
Peterman, AH ;
Merkel, DE .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 2002, 24 (06) :547-561
[3]   What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) study 5592 [J].
Cella, D ;
Eton, DT ;
Fairclough, DL ;
Bonomi, P ;
Heyes, AE ;
Silberman, C ;
Wolf, MK ;
Johnson, DH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 55 (03) :285-295
[4]   Quality of life evaluation in oncological clinical trials - the EORTC model [J].
de Haes, J ;
Curran, D ;
Young, T ;
Bottomley, A ;
Flechtner, H ;
Aaronson, N ;
Blazeby, J ;
Bjordal, K ;
Brandberg, Y ;
Greimel, E ;
Maher, J ;
Sprangers, M ;
Cull, A .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2000, 36 (07) :821-825
[5]   Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change [J].
de Vet, Henrica C. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. ;
Beckerman, Heleen ;
Knol, Dirk L. ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2006, 4 (1)
[6]   Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states [J].
Dolan, P .
MEDICAL CARE, 1997, 35 (11) :1095-1108
[7]   A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale [J].
Eton, DT ;
Cella, D ;
Yost, KJ ;
Yount, SE ;
Peterman, AH ;
Neuberg, DS ;
Sledge, GW ;
Wood, WC .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2004, 57 (09) :898-910
[8]  
GUNTER OH, ITEM RESPONSE THEORY
[9]   Comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-12 health surveys in a general population survey in Alberta, Canada [J].
Johnson, JA ;
Pickard, AS .
MEDICAL CARE, 2000, 38 (01) :115-121
[10]   INTERPRETATION OF QUALITY-OF-LIFE CHANGES [J].
LYDICK, E ;
EPSTEIN, RS .
QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 1993, 2 (03) :221-226