EQ-5D和SF-6D指数中最小重要差异的估计及其在中风中的应用。
Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke.
作者信息
Kim Sang-Kyu, Kim Seon-Ha, Jo Min-Woo, Lee Sang-il
机构信息
Department of Preventive Medicine, Dongguk University College of Medicine, 123, Dongdae-ro, Gyeongju-si, Gyeongbuk, South Korea.
Department of Nursing, Dankook University, 119 Dandae-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan-si, Chungnam, South Korea.
出版信息
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Mar 9;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present study was to estimate minimally important differences (MIDs) in EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and to explore the responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D indices in stroke.
METHODS
We used observational longitudinal survey data of EQ-5D and SF-36 that were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 10 months. A range of MIDs for both indexes was estimated using anchor-based approaches. The modified Rankin scale and the Barthel index were used as an anchor.
RESULTS
The MID estimates for EQ-5D ranged from 0.08 to 0.12 and those for SF-6D ranged from 0.04 to 0.14 in stroke patients. The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index.
CONCLUSIONS
The MID values for these two utility measures differed in absolute magnitude, as the SF-6D index has wider range that that of the EQ-5D index. These MID estimates may assist the interpretation of health related quality of life assessments related to health care intervention in stroke patients.
摘要
背景
本研究旨在评估EQ-5D和SF-6D指数的最小重要差异（MIDs），并探讨EQ-5D和SF-6D指数在中风患者中的反应性。
方法
我们使用了对中风患者在基线和10个月时进行的EQ-5D和SF-36的观察性纵向调查数据。使用基于锚定的方法估计了这两个指数的一系列最小重要差异。改良Rankin量表和Barthel指数用作锚定。
结果
中风患者中EQ-5D的最小重要差异估计值在0.08至0.12之间，SF-6D的最小重要差异估计值在0.04至0.14之间。这两种效用测量方法的最小重要差异值在绝对大小上有所不同，因为SF-6D指数的范围比EQ-5D指数更广。
结论
这两种效用测量方法的最小重要差异值在绝对大小上有所不同，因为SF-6D指数的范围比EQ-5D指数更广。这些最小重要差异估计值可能有助于解释与中风患者医疗保健干预相关的健康相关生活质量评估。
相似文献
1
Estimation of minimally important differences in the EQ-5D and SF-6D indices and their utility in stroke.EQ-5D和SF-6D指数中最小重要差异的估计及其在中风中的应用。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Mar 9;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3.
2
Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.两种健康状态效用测量方法（EQ-5D和SF-6D）最小重要差异的比较。
Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1523-32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0.
3
Responsiveness and minimally important difference of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.SF-6D 和 EQ-5D 效用评分在治疗盆腔器官脱垂中的反应性和最小重要差异。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Mar;220(3):265.e1-265.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1094. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
4
A comparison of the measurement properties and estimation of minimal important differences of the EQ-5D and SF-6D utility measures in patients with systemic sclerosis.系统性硬化症患者中 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 效用测量的测量特性和最小重要差异的比较。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2013 Mar-Apr;31(2 Suppl 76):50-6. Epub 2013 Jul 22.
5
Validity and responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in patients with health complaints attributed to their amalgam fillings: a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing amalgam removal.健康抱怨归因于银汞合金填充物的患者中 EQ-5D-5L 和 SF-6D 的有效性和反应度：接受银汞合金去除术的患者的前瞻性队列研究。
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021 Apr 17;19(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01762-4.
6
The impact of disease severity on EQ-5D and SF-6D utility discrepancies in chronic heart failure.疾病严重程度对慢性心力衰竭 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 效用差异的影响。
Eur J Health Econ. 2011 Aug;12(4):383-91. doi: 10.1007/s10198-010-0252-4. Epub 2010 May 15.
7
[Health Utility of Patients with Stroke Measured by EQ-5D and SF-6D].[采用EQ-5D和SF-6D测量的中风患者的健康效用值]
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2018 Mar;49(2):252-257.
8
Evaluating a falls prevention intervention in older home care recipients: a comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D.评估老年人家庭护理中跌倒预防干预措施的效果：SF-6D 与 EQ-5D 的比较。
Qual Life Res. 2019 Dec;28(12):3187-3195. doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02258-x. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
9
A comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference-based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.类风湿关节炎患者使用 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 偏好型通用量表进行效用测量的比较。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Jul-Aug;29(4):661-71. Epub 2011 Aug 31.
10
Responsiveness of EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with early arthritis: results from the ESPOIR cohort.早期关节炎患者的 EQ-5D 和 SF-6D 的反应性：来自 ESPOIR 队列的结果。
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Sep;71(9):1478-83. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200891. Epub 2012 Mar 14.
引用本文的文献
1
A systematic review of minimum important changes for generic multi-attribute utility instruments and recommendations for their estimation.通用多属性效用工具最小重要变化的系统评价及其估计建议。
Eur J Health Econ. 2025 Apr 16. doi: 10.1007/s10198-025-01778-3.
2
Emerging perspectives in quality of life after trabeculectomy surgery.小梁切除术后生活质量的新观点
Eye (Lond). 2025 May;39(7):1394-1399. doi: 10.1038/s41433-025-03636-1. Epub 2025 Feb 8.
3
The Role of Atrial Fibrillation and Oral Anticoagulation Status in Health-Related Quality of Life 12 Months After Ischemic Stroke or TIA.缺血性中风或短暂性脑缺血发作12个月后，心房颤动和口服抗凝状态对健康相关生活质量的影响。
Brain Behav. 2025 Jan;15(1):e70248. doi: 10.1002/brb3.70248.
4
Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review.中风试验中报告的量表的最小临床重要差异：一项综述。
Brain Sci. 2024 Jan 13;14(1):80. doi: 10.3390/brainsci14010080.
5
Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Neurological Conditions: Review of Concept and Methods.神经疾病患者报告结局测量中的最小临床重要差异（MCID）：概念与方法综述
Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2023 Jul-Aug;26(4):334-343. doi: 10.4103/aian.aian_207_23. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
6
A systematic review and meta-analysis of health utility values among patients with ischemic stroke.缺血性中风患者健康效用值的系统评价与荟萃分析。
Front Neurol. 2023 Sep 5;14:1219679. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1219679. eCollection 2023.
7
Statistical analysis plan for the stepped wedge clinical trial Healing Right Way-enhancing rehabilitation services for Aboriginal Australians after brain injury.阶梯式楔形临床试验 Healing Right Way 的统计分析计划——增强澳大利亚原住民颅脑损伤后的康复服务。
Trials. 2022 Oct 22;23(1):886. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06800-0.
8
Health State Utility Values in People With Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.脑卒中患者的健康状态效用值：系统评价和荟萃分析。
J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Jul 5;11(13):e024296. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.121.024296. Epub 2022 Jun 22.
9
Health-related Quality of Life Instrument With 8 Items for Use in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Validation Study in Korea.用于 2 型糖尿病患者的 8 项健康相关生活质量量表的验证研究：韩国的一项研究。
J Prev Med Public Health. 2022 May;55(3):234-242. doi: 10.3961/jpmph.22.020. Epub 2022 May 12.
10
Healing Right Way: study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial to enhance rehabilitation services and improve quality of life in Aboriginal Australians after brain injury.《正确康复之路：一项提高澳大利亚原住民颅脑损伤后康复服务和生活质量的阶梯式楔形集群随机对照试验方案》
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 28;11(9):e045898. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045898.
本文引用的文献
1
Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D for cancer patients in Korea.韩国癌症患者 EQ-5D 的有效性和可靠性。
Support Care Cancer. 2012 Dec;20(12):3155-60. doi: 10.1007/s00520-012-1457-0. Epub 2012 Apr 10.
2
Health-related quality of life using the EuroQol 5D questionnaire in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes.使用欧洲五维健康量表问卷评估韩国 2 型糖尿病患者的健康相关生活质量。
J Korean Med Sci. 2012 Mar;27(3):255-60. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2012.27.3.255. Epub 2012 Feb 23.
3
Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients.关于识别随时间变化的患者的一致性：白内障和心力衰竭患者的警示结果。
Med Decis Making. 2012 Mar-Apr;32(2):273-86. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11418671. Epub 2011 Oct 18.
4
Responsiveness and minimal important score differences in quality-of-life questionnaires: a comparison of the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific questionnaire to the generic utility questionnaires EQ-5D and 15D in patients with multiple myeloma.生活质量问卷的反应度和最小重要得分差异：多发性骨髓瘤患者中 EORTC QLQ-C30 癌症特异性问卷与通用效用量表 EQ-5D 和 15D 的比较。
Eur J Haematol. 2011 Oct;87(4):330-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2011.01665.x. Epub 2011 Jul 26.
5
The Barthel Index: comparing inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors in an older adult rehabilitation unit.巴塞尔指数：比较老年康复病房护士和医生之间的评分者间信度。
Appl Nurs Res. 2011 Feb;24(1):e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.apnr.2009.11.002. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
6
Five preference-based indexes in cataract and heart failure patients were not equally responsive to change.在白内障和心力衰竭患者中，五种基于偏好的指标对变化的反应并不相同。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 May;64(5):497-506. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 Aug 4.
7
The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference.最小可检测变化不能可靠地替代最小有意义差异。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jan;63(1):28-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024. Epub 2009 Oct 1.
8
South Korean time trade-off values for EQ-5D health states: modeling with observed values for 101 health states.韩国时间权衡值对 EQ-5D 健康状态的评估：对 101 个健康状态的观察值进行建模。
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1187-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00579.x. Epub 2009 Jul 29.
9
Health-related quality of life after stroke: what are we measuring?中风后的健康相关生活质量：我们在测量什么？
Int J Rehabil Res. 2008 Jun;31(2):111-7. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e3282fc0f33.
10
Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer.癌症患者EQ-5D效用值和视觉模拟评分中最小重要差异的估计
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Dec 21;5:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-70.
Zotero 插件