IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v24y2023i6d10.1007_s10198-022-01523-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients

Author

Listed:
  • Chen-Wei Pan

    (Medical College of Soochow University)

  • Jun-Yi He

    (Fudan University
    National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (Fudan University))

  • Yan-Bo Zhu

    (The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University)

  • Chun-Hua Zhao

    (The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical UniversitySuzhou Municipal HospitalNanjing Medical University)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Pei Wang

    (Fudan University
    National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (Fudan University))

Abstract

Background To compare measurement properties of the utility scores derived from various country-specific value sets of EQ-5D-5L (5L) and EORTC QLU-C10D (10D) in gastric cancer patient. Methods The study used cross-sectional data of 243 Chinese gastric cancer patients who completed both 5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Utility score of QLU-C10D is generated from all the available QLU-C10D value sets currently; the score of 5L is derived from the corresponding 5L value sets for the countries with both the 5L and QLU-C10D value sets and the Chinese 5L value set. Convergent validity was evaluated by testing their correlations with the VAS score. Known-group validity was assessed by comparing the utility scores the patients with different severities. Their relative efficiency (RE) was also compared. Results Correlation coefficient of 5L and QLU-C10D utility scores with VAS ranged from 0.54 to 0.59, and 0.55 to 0.63, respectively. Both the utility scores were in general able to discriminate the patients with different severities; and 5L utility score had higher RE in the majority of known-groups. Conclusion EQ-5D-5L and QLU-C10D utility scores were different and, thus, non-swappable. They possess similar convergent validity and known-group validity; while EQ-5D-5L scores may have better discriminative power.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen-Wei Pan & Jun-Yi He & Yan-Bo Zhu & Chun-Hua Zhao & Nan Luo & Pei Wang, 2023. "Comparison of EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLU-C10D utilities in gastric cancer patients," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 885-893, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01523-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01523-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominik Golicki & Michał Jakubczyk & Katarzyna Graczyk & Maciej Niewada, 2019. "Valuation of EQ-5D-5L Health States in Poland: the First EQ-VT-Based Study in Central and Eastern Europe," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(9), pages 1165-1176, September.
    2. Dennis A. Revicki & Madeleine T. King & Rosalie Viney & A. Simon Pickard & Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber & James W. Shaw & Fabiola Müller & Richard Norman, 2021. "United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 485-501, May.
    3. Kristina Ludwig & J.-Matthias Graf von der Schulenburg & Wolfgang Greiner, 2018. "German Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(6), pages 663-674, June.
    4. Hansoo Kim & Greg Cook & Stephen Goodall & Danny Liew, 2021. "Comparison of EQ-5D-3L with QLU-C10D in Metastatic Melanoma Using Cost-Utility Analysis," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 459-467, September.
    5. Nancy J. Devlin & Richard Brooks, 2017. "EQ-5D and the EuroQol Group: Past, Present and Future," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-137, April.
    6. Luiz Flavio Andrade & Kristina Ludwig & Juan Manuel Ramos Goni & Mark Oppe & Gérard Pouvourville, 2020. "A French Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 413-425, April.
    7. Richard Norman & Paula Cronin & Rosalie Viney, 2013. "A Pilot Discrete Choice Experiment to Explore Preferences for EQ-5D-5L Health States," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 287-298, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sullivan, Trudy & Hansen, Paul & Ombler, Franz & Derrett, Sarah & Devlin, Nancy, 2020. "A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing ‘dead’," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    2. Elena Olariu & Wael Mohammed & Yemi Oluboyede & Raluca Caplescu & Ileana Gabriela Niculescu-Aron & Marian Sorin Paveliu & Luke Vale, 2023. "EQ-5D-5L: a value set for Romania," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(3), pages 399-412, April.
    3. Micha J. Pilz & Simon Seyringer & Lára R. Hallsson & Andrew Bottomley & Femke Jansen & Madeleine T. King & Richard Norman & Marianne J. Rutten & Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw & Peter D. Siersema & Eva Mar, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(9), pages 1539-1555, December.
    4. Suzi Claflin & Julie A. Campbell & Richard Norman & Deborah F. Mason & Tomas Kalincik & Steve Simpson-Yap & Helmut Butzkueven & William M. Carroll & Andrew J. Palmer & C. Leigh Blizzard & Ingrid van d, 2023. "Using the EQ-5D-5L to investigate quality-of-life impacts of disease-modifying therapy policies for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in New Zealand," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 939-950, August.
    5. Menyfah Q. Alanazi & Waleed Abdelgawwad & Thamer A. Almangour & Fatma Mostafa & Mona Almuheed, 2023. "Impact of COVID-19 on the Health-Related Quality of Life of Patients during Infection and after Recovery in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Marta Encheva & Slaveyko Djambazov & Toni Vekov & Dominik Golicki, 2020. "EQ-5D-5L Bulgarian population norms," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(8), pages 1169-1178, November.
    7. Finch, Aureliano Paolo & Meregaglia, Michela & Ciani, Oriana & Roudijk, Bram & Jommi, Claudio, 2022. "An EQ-5D-5L value set for Italy using videoconferencing interviews and feasibility of a new mode of administration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    8. Kelleher, Dan & Barry, Luke & Hobbins, Anna & O'Neill, Stephen & Doherty, Edel & O'Neill, Ciaran, 2020. "Examining the transnational health preferences of a group of Eastern European migrants relative to a European host population using the EQ-5D-5L," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    9. Knott, R. & Lorgelly, P. & Black, N. & Hollingsworth, B., 2016. "Differential item functioning in the EQ-5D: An exploratory analysis using anchoring vignettes," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 16/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Richard Huan Xu & Eliza Lai-yi Wong & Nan Luo & Richard Norman & Jens Lehmann & Bernhard Holzner & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler, 2024. "The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(5), pages 889-901, July.
    11. Stefan A. Lipman & Liying Zhang & Koonal K. Shah & Arthur E. Attema, 2023. "Time and lexicographic preferences in the valuation of EQ-5D-Y with time trade-off methodology," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(2), pages 293-305, March.
    12. John Brazier & Roberta Ara & Donna Rowen & Helene Chevrou-Severac, 2017. "A Review of Generic Preference-Based Measures for Use in Cost-Effectiveness Models," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 21-31, December.
    13. Hannah Christensen & Hareth Al-Janabi & Pierre Levy & Maarten J. Postma & David E. Bloom & Paolo Landa & Oliver Damm & David M. Salisbury & Javier Diez-Domingo & Adrian K. Towse & Paula K. Lorgelly & , 2020. "Economic evaluation of meningococcal vaccines: considerations for the future," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(2), pages 297-309, March.
    14. Brendan Mulhern & Richard Norman & John Brazier, 2021. "Valuing SF-6Dv2 in Australia Using an International Protocol," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 39(10), pages 1151-1162, October.
    15. Richard Norman & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney, 2016. "The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 34(8), pages 805-814, August.
    16. Yiyin Cao & Haofei Li & Ling Jie Cheng & Madeleine T. King & Georg Kemmler & David Cella & Hongjuan Yu & Weidong Huang & Nan Luo, 2024. "A comparison of measurement properties between EORTC QLU-C10D and FACT-8D in patients with hematological malignances," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    17. Knott, Rachel J. & Lorgelly, Paula K. & Black, Nicole & Hollingsworth, Bruce, 2017. "Differential item functioning in quality of life measurement: An analysis using anchoring vignettes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 247-255.
    18. Tianxin Pan & Brendan Mulhern & Rosalie Viney & Richard Norman & Janel Hanmer & Nancy Devlin, 2022. "A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 297-307, March.
    19. Cassandra Mah & Vanessa K. Noonan & Stirling Bryan & David G. T. Whitehurst, 2021. "Empirical Validity of a Generic, Preference-Based Capability Wellbeing Instrument (ICECAP-A) in the Context of Spinal Cord Injury," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 223-240, March.
    20. Bansback, Nick & Hole, Arne Risa & Mulhern, Brendan & Tsuchiya, Aki, 2014. "Testing a discrete choice experiment including duration to value health states for large descriptive systems: Addressing design and sampling issues," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 38-48.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01523-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.