IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v18y2025i1d10.1007_s40271-024-00711-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Ai-Ping Chua

    (National University Health System
    National University of Singapore)

  • Ling Jie Cheng

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Zhi Yi Soh

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Le Ann Chen

    (National University of Singapore)

  • Nan Luo

    (National University of Singapore)

Abstract

Objective We aimed to synthesize the evidence on the construct validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and compare them with asthma-specific health-related quality-of-life scales, to guide further research and clinical applications in asthma. Methods We searched key databases from inception to 1 June, 2024 and used the COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) method to appraise the evidence. The effect size estimates were aggregated using the inverse variance method to evaluate the relative efficiency of EQ-5D measures against the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and/or its corresponding preference-based index, Asthma Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (AQL-5D). Results There were 493 tests (construct validity: 428; responsiveness: 65) drawn from 37 selected articles (validation: 7; clinical: 30). Overall, 78.4% and 76.9% of the a priori hypotheses for assessing construct validity (convergent validity: 56.4%; known groups: 88.5%) and responsiveness, respectively, were satisfied. The methodological quality was “very good” or “adequate” in 78.2% of construct validity tests and 92.3% of responsiveness tests. The pooled correlation coefficient between EQ-5D index and AQLQ total scores was 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.43–0.59), and between EQ visual analog scale and AQLQ total scores was 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.34–0.69). The Cohen’s d ratios for the index, level sum scores, and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.56 (n = 27), 1.16 (n = 16), and 0.75 (n = 37). The EQ-5D index’s Cohen’s d ratio compared to AQL-5D was 0.49 (n = 5). The standardized response mean ratios for the index and visual analog scale compared to AQLQ were 0.26 (n = 11) and 0.63 (n = 9). Conclusions The EQ-5D demonstrated overall good validity and responsiveness in the adult asthma population. However, a comparison against disease-specific instruments suggested scope for improvement in its psychometric performance for this population.

Suggested Citation

  • Ai-Ping Chua & Ling Jie Cheng & Zhi Yi Soh & Le Ann Chen & Nan Luo, 2025. "Validity and Responsiveness of EQ-5D in Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(1), pages 35-47, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00711-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00711-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00711-9
    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/s40271-024-00711-9?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:patien:v:18:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00711-9. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.