Kim Sang-Kyu, Kim Seon-Ha, Jo Min-Woo, Lee Sang-il
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.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Mar 9;13:32. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0227-3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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。
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。
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。
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。
