↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing the mapping between EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in non-small cell lung cancer patients
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0455-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iftekhar Khan, Steve Morris, Nora Pashayan, Bashir Matata, Zahid Bashir, Joe Maguirre

Abstract

Several mapping algorithms have been published with the EORTC-QLQ-C30 for estimating EQ-5D-3L utilities. However, none are available with EQ-5D-5L. Moreover, a comparison between mapping algorithms in the same set of patients has not been performed for these two instruments simultaneously. In this prospective data set of 100 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, we investigate three mapping algorithms using the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L and compare their performance. A prospective non-interventional cohort of 100 NSCLC patients were followed up for 12 months. EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and EORTC-QLQ-C30 were assessed monthly. EQ-5D-5L was completed at least 1 week after EQ-5D-3L. A random effects linear regression model, a beta-binomial (BB) and a Limited Variable Dependent Mixture (LVDM) model were used to determine a mapping algorithm between EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L and QLQ-C30. Simulation and cross validation and other statistical measures were used to compare the performances of the algorithms. Mapping from the EQ-5D-5L was better: lower AIC, RMSE, MAE and higher R(2) were reported with the EQ-5D-5L than with EQ-5D-3L regardless of the functional form of the algorithm. The BB model proved to be more useful for both instruments: for the EQ-5D-5L, AIC was -485, R(2) of 75 %, MAE of 0.075 and RMSE was 0.092. This was -385, 69 %, 0.099 and 0.113 for EQ-5D-3L respectively. The mean observed vs. predicted utilities were 0.572 vs. 0.577 and 0.515 vs. 0.523 for EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L respectively, for OLS; for BB, these were 0.572 vs. 0.575 and 0.515 vs. 0.518 respectively and for LVDMM 0.532 vs 0.515 and 0.569 vs 0.572 respectively. Less over-prediction at poorer health states was observed with EQ-5D-5L. The BB mapping algorithm is confirmed to offer a better fit for both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. The results confirm previous and more recent results on the use of BB type modelling approaches for mapping. It is recommended that in studies where EQ-5D utilities have not been collected, an EQ-5D-5L mapping algorithm is used.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 60 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Master 9 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 15 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 32%