↓ Skip to main content

An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
An analysis of the complementarity of ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L in an adult population of patients with knee pain
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0430-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. Keeley, J. Coast, E. Nicholls, N. E. Foster, S. Jowett, H. Al-Janabi

Abstract

The ICECAP measures potentially offer a broader assessment of quality of life and well-being, in comparison to measures routinely used in economic evaluation, such as the EQ-5D-3 L. This broader assessment may allow measurement of the full effects of an intervention or treatment. Previous research has indicated that the ICECAP-O (for older people) and EQ-5D-3 L measure provide complementary information. This paper aims to determine similar information for the ICECAP-A (for the entire adult population) in terms of whether the measure is a substitute or complement to the EQ-5D-3 L. Data from the BEEP trial - a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial - were used. Spearman rank correlations and exploratory factor analytic methods were used to assess whether ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring the same, or different, constructs. A correlation of 0.49 (p < 0.01) was found between the ICECAP-A tariff score and the EQ-5D-3 L index. Using the pooled items of the EQ-5D-3 L and the ICECAP-A a two factor solution was optimal, with the majority of EQ-5D-3 L items loading onto one factor and the majority of ICECAP-A items onto another. The results presented in this paper indicate that ICECAP-A and EQ-5D-3 L are measuring two different constructs and provide largely different, complementary information. Results showed a similarity to results presented by Davis et al. using the ICECAP-O. ISRCTN 93634563.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 24 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 24 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,171,903
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#128
of 2,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,729
of 298,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#2
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 298,620 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.