↓ Skip to main content

Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ‐5D‐3L and EQ‐5D‐5L Health Values
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0647-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Selivanova, Erik Buskens, Paul F. M. Krabbe

Abstract

The EQ-5D is a widely used preference-based instrument to measure health-related quality of life. Some methodological drawbacks of its three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) prompted development of a new format (EQ-5D-5L). There is no clear evidence that the new format outperforms the standard version. The objective of this study was to make a head-to-head comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in a discrete choice model setting giving special attention to the consistency and logical ordering of coefficients for the attribute levels and to the differences in health-state values. Using efficient designs, 240 pairs of EQ-5D-3L health states and 240 pairs of EQ-5D-5L health states were generated in a pairwise choice format. The study included 3698 Dutch general population respondents, analyzed their responses using a conditional logit model, and compared the values elicited by EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L for different health states. No inconsistencies or illogical ordering of level coefficients were observed in either version. The proportion of severe health states with low values was higher in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L, and the proportion of mild/moderate states was lower in the EQ-5D-5L than in the EQ-5D-3L. Moreover, differences were observed in the relative weights of the attributes. Overall distribution of health-state values derived from a large representative sample using the same measurement framework for both versions showed differences between the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. However, even small differences in the phrasing (language) of the descriptive system or in the valuation protocol can produce differences in values between these two versions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 18 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 20 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,504,780
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,544
of 1,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,164
of 329,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#37
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.