Background. Group mean estimates and their underlying distributions are the focus of assessment for cost and outcome variables in economic evaluation. Research focusing on the comparability of alternative preference-based measures of health-related quality of life has typically focused on analysis of individual-level data within specific clinical specialties or community-based samples. Purpose. To explore the relationship between group mean scores for the EQ-5D and SF-6D across the utility scoring range. Methods. Studies were identified via a systematic search of 13 online electronic databases, a review of reference lists of included papers, and hand searches of key journals. Studies were included if they reported contemporaneous mean EQ-5D and SF-6D health state scores. All (sub)group comparisons of group mean EQ-5D and SF-6D scores identifiable from text, tables, or figures were extracted from identified studies. A total of 921 group mean comparisons were extracted from 56 studies. The nature of the relationship between the paired scores was examined using ranked scatter graphs and analysis of agreement. Results. Systematic differences in group mean estimates were observed at both ends of the utility scale. At the lower (upper) end of the scale, the SF-6D (EQ-5D) provides higher mean utility estimates. Conclusions. These findings show that group mean EQ-5D and SF-6D scores are not directly comparable. This raises serious concerns about the cross-study comparability of economic evaluations that differ in the choice of preference-based measures, although the review focuses on 2 of the available instruments only. Further work is needed to address the practical implications of noninterchangeable utility estimates for cost-per-QALY estimates and decision making.
BryanSWilliamsIMcIverS. Seeing the NICE side of cost-effectiveness analysis: a qualitative investigation of the use of CEA in NICE technology appraisals. Health Econ. 2007;16(2):179–93.
2.
WilliamsIMcIverSMooreDBryanS. The use of economic evaluations in NHS decision-making: a review and empirical investigation. Health Technol Assess. 2008;12(7):1–175.
3.
RafteryJ. NICE: faster access to modern treatments? Analysis of guidance on health technologies. Brit Med J. 2001;323(7324):1300–3.
4.
Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service; 1995.
5.
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Health Technologies: Canada. 3rd ed.Ottawa: CADTH; 2006.
6.
GoldMSiegelJRussellLWeinsteinM. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
7.
Ziekenfondsraad. Dutch Guidelines for Pharmacoeconomic Research. Amstelveen: Health Insurance Council (Ziekenfondsraad); 1999.
8.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
9.
BrazierJAkehurstRBrennanA. Should patients have a greater role in valuing health states?Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):201–8.
10.
McGuireA. Theoretical concepts in the economic evaluation of health care. In: DrummondMFMaguireA eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 1–21.
11.
TorranceGW. Utility measurement in healthcare: the things I never got to. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(11):1069–78.
12.
DolanP. Output measures and valuation in health. In: DrummondMFMaguireA eds. Economic Evaluation in Health Care: Merging Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 46–67.
13.
KopecJAWillisonKD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):317–25.
14.
BrazierJDeverillM. A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. Health Econ. 1999;8(1):41–51.
15.
FurlongWJFeenyDHTorranceGWBarrRD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):375–84.
16.
HawthorneGRichardsonJOsborneR. The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(3):209–24.
17.
BrooksR. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37(1):53–72.
18.
BrazierJRobertsJDeverillM. The estimation of a preference- based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92.
19.
BrazierJERobertsJ. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med Care. 2004;42(9):851–9.
20.
SintonenH. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–36.
21.
TsuchiyaABrazierJRobertsJ. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2006;25(2):334–46.
22.
RatcliffeJBrazierJPalfreymanSMichaelsJ. A comparison of patient and population values for health states in varicose veins patients. Health Econ. 2007;16(4):395–405.
23.
RatcliffeJBuxtonMYoungTLongworthL. Determining priority for liver transplantation: a comparison of cost per QALY and discrete choice experiment-generated public preferences. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2005;4(4):249–55.
24.
BrazierJDeverillMGreenCHarperRBoothA. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3(9):1–164.
25.
McDonoughCMTostesonAN. Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007;25(2):93–106.
26.
BartonGRBankartJDavisAC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int J Audiol. 2005;44(3):157–63.
27.
MaesIHJooreMACimaRFVlaeyenJWAnteunisLJ. Assessment of health state in patients with tinnitus: a comparison of the EQ-5D and HUI mark III. Ear Hear. 2011;32(4):428-35.
28.
WhitehurstDGBryanS. Another study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be?Value Health. 2011;14(4):531-8.
29.
BrazierJRobertsJTsuchiyaABusschbachJ. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ. 2004;13(9):873–84.
30.
LillegravenSKristiansenISKvienTK. Comparison of utility measures and their relationship with other health status measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(10):1762–7.
31.
MarraCAEsdaileJMGuhD. A comparison of four indirect methods of assessing utility values in rheumatoid arthritis. Med Care. 2004;42(11):1125–31.
32.
FeenyDWuLEngK. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(10):1659–70.
33.
MoockJKohlmannT. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):485–95.
34.
Conner-SpadyBSuarez-AlmazorME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference- based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41(7):791–801.
35.
JooreMBrunenbergDNelemansP. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health. 2010;13(2):222–9.
36.
SachTHBartonGRJenkinsonCDohertyMAveryAJMuirKR. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter?Med Care. 2009;47(8):889–94.
37.
LongworthLBryanS. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ. 2003;12(12):1061–7.
38.
AletrasVHKontodimopoulosNNiakasDA. Valuation and preliminary validation of the Greek 15D in a sample of patients with coronary artery disease. Value Health. 2009;12(4):574–9.
39.
BrazierJEFukuharaSRobertsJ. Estimating a preference- based index from the Japanese SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(12):1323–31.
40.
FerreiraLNFerreiraPLPereiraLNBrazierJRowenD. A Portuguese value set for the SF-6D. Value Health. 2010;13(5):624–30.
41.
PetrouSKupekE. Estimating preference-based Health Utilities Index Mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Med Decis Making. 2009;29(3):291–303.
42.
ShawJWJohnsonJACoonsSJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.
43.
RabinRde CharroF. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):337–43.
44.
DolanPGudexCKindPWilliamsA. A Social Tariff for EuroQol: Results from a UK General Population Survey. Discussion Paper No. 138. York: Centre for Health Economics; 1995.
45.
BrazierJUsherwoodTHarperRThomasK. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1115–28.
46.
WareJEJrSherbourneCD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.
47.
WareJJrKosinskiMKellerSD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.
48.
PROM Bibliography Database. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Group, University of Oxford. Available from: http://phi.uhce.ox.ac.uk.
49.
FejerRJordanAHartvigsenJ. Categorising the severity of neck pain: establishment of cut-points for use in clinical and epidemiological research. Pain. 2005;119(1–3):176–82.
50.
TerweeCBBotSDde BoerMR. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
51.
JooreMABrunenbergD. Exploring patterns of differences between EQ-5D and SF-6D: a systematic review. Presented at the 6th International Health Economics Association World Congress; Copenhagen; July, 2007.
52.
BartonGRSachTHAveryAJ. A comparison of the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D for individuals aged >or= 45 years. Health Econ. 2008;17(7):815–32.
53.
BlandJMAltmanDG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307–10.
ShroutPE. Measurement reliability and agreement in psychiatry. Stat Methods Med Res. 1998;7(3):301–17.
56.
BansbackNMarraCTsuchiyaA. Using the health assessment questionnaire to estimate preference-based single indices in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):963–71.
57.
BartonGRBankartJDavisACSummerfieldQA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):103–5.
58.
BartonGRSachTHDohertyMAveryAJJenkinsonCMuirKR. An assessment of the discriminative ability of the EQ-5D index, SF-6D, and EQ VAS, using sociodemographic factors and clinical conditions. Eur J Health Econ. 2008;9(3):237–49.
59.
BartonGRSachTHAveryAJDohertyMJenkinsonCMuirKR. Comparing the performance of the EQ-5D and SF-6D when measuring the benefits of alleviating knee pain. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2009;7:12.
60.
BoonenAvan der HeijdeDLandewéR. How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(6):771–7.
61.
BoonenAPatelVTrainaSChiouCFMaetzelATsujiW. Rapid and sustained improvement in health-related quality of life and utility for 72 weeks in patients with ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(4):662–7.
62.
BuxtonMJLaceyLAFeaganBGNieckoTMillerDWTownsendRJ. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn’s Disease Activity Index in Crohn’s disease and measures of utility. Value Health. 2007;10(3):214–20.
63.
EspallarguesMCzoski-MurrayCJBansbackNJ. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46(11):4016–23.
64.
FerreiraPLFerreiraLNPereiraLN. How consistent are health utility values?Qual Life Res. 2008;17(7):1031–42.
65.
GerardKNicholsonTMulleeMMehtaRRoderickP. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2004;3(2):91–102.
66.
GlasziouPAlexanderJBellerEClarkeP; ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Which health-related quality of life score? A comparison of alternative utility measures in patients with type 2 diabetes in the ADVANCE trial. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:21.
67.
GrieveRGrishchenkoMCairnsJ. SF-6D versus EQ-5D: reasons for differences in utility scores and impact on reported cost-utility. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10(1):15–23.
68.
HarrisonMJDaviesLMBansbackNJ.; British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register Control Centre Consortium. The comparative responsiveness of the EQ-5D and SF-6D to change in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1195–205.
69.
HarrisonMJLuntMVerstappenSMWatsonKDBansbackNJSymmonsDP. Exploring the validity of estimating EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values from the health assessment questionnaire in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:21.
70.
HawthorneG. Assessing utility where short measures are required: development of the short Assessment of Quality of Life-8 (AQoL-8) instrument. Value Health. 2009;12(6):948–57.
71.
KontodimopoulosNAletrasVHPaliourasDNiakasD. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1151–7.
72.
KontodimopoulosNPappaEPapadopoulosAATountasYNiakasD. Comparing SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities across groups differing in health status. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):87–97.
73.
KvammeMKKristiansenISLieEKvienTK. Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(1):26–31.
74.
LamersLMBouwmansCAvan StratenADonkerMCHakkaartL. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients. Health Econ. 2006;15(11):1229–36.
75.
LangfittJTVickreyBGMcDermottMP. Validity and responsiveness of generic preference-based HRQOL instruments in chronic epilepsy. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(5):899–914.
76.
LillegravenSKvienTK. Measuring disability and quality of life in established rheumatoid arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2007;21(5):827–40.
77.
MannRGilbodySRichardsD. Putting the ‘Q’ in depression QALYs: a comparison of utility measurement using EQ-5D and SF-6D health related quality of life measures. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009;44(7):569–78.
78.
MarraCAWoolcottJCKopecJA. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(7):1571–82.
79.
McCronePPatelAKnappM. A comparison of SF-6D and EQ-5D utility scores in a study of patients with schizophrenia. J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2009;12(1):27–31.
80.
McDonoughCMGroveMRTostesonTDLurieJDHilibrandASTostesonAN. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(5):1321–32.
81.
McKennaSPRatcliffeJMeadsDMBrazierJE. Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008;6:65.
82.
McTaggart-CowanHMMarraCAYangY. The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(3):453–62.
83.
MichaelsJACampbellWBBrazierJE. Randomised clinical trial, observational study and assessment of cost-effectiveness of the treatment of varicose veins (REACTIV trial). Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(13):1–196.
84.
MichaelsJACampbellWBKingBM. A prospective randomised controlled trial and economic modelling of antimicrobial silver dressings versus non-adherent control dressings for venous leg ulcers: the VULCAN trial. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(56):1–114.
85.
Osnes-RingenHKvienTKHenriksenJEMowinckelPDagfinrudH. Orthopaedic surgery in 255 patients with inflammatory arthropathies: longitudinal effects on pain, physical function and health-related quality of life. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(10):1596–601.
86.
PetrouSHockleyC. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ. 2005;14(11):1169–89.
87.
PetrouSMorrellJSpibyH. Assessing the empirical validity of alternative multi-attribute utility measures in the maternity context. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009;7:40.
88.
PickardASJohnsonJAFeenyDH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):207–19.
89.
QuercioliCMessinaGBarbiniECarrieroGFaniMNanteN. Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools. Eur J Health Econ. 2009;10:389–97.
90.
RussellASConner-SpadyBMintzAMaksymowychWP. The responsiveness of generic health status measures as assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving infliximab. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(5):941–7.
91.
SachTHBartonGRDohertyMMuirKRJenkinsonCAveryAJ. The relationship between body mass index and health- related quality of life: comparing the EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS and SF-6D. Int J Obes (Lond). 2007;31(1):189–96.
92.
SeymourJMcNameePScottATinelliM. Shedding new light onto the ceiling and floor? A quantile regression approach to compare EQ-5D and SF-6D responses. Health Econ. 2010;19(6):683–96.
93.
SøgaardRChristensenFBVidebaekTSBüngerCChristiansenT. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in long-lasting low back pain. Value Health. 2009;12(4):606–12.
94.
StavemKFrølandSSHellumKB. Comparison of preference- based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(4):971–80.
95.
SzendeASvenssonKStåhlEMészárosABertaGY. Psychometric and utility-based measures of health status of asthmatic patients with different disease control level. Pharmacoeconomics. 2004;22(8):537–47.
96.
TengYKVerburgRJSontJKvan den HoutWBBreedveldFCvan LaarJM. Long-term followup of health status in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis after high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(8):2272–6.
97.
ThomasKJMacPhersonHRatcliffeJ. Longer term clinical and economic benefits of offering acupuncture care to patients with chronic low back pain. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(32):1–109.
98.
van den HoutWBde JongZMunnekeMHazesJMBreedveldFCVliet VlielandTP. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses of a long-term, high-intensity exercise program compared with conventional physical therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;53(1):39–47.
99.
van den HoutWBPeulWCKoesBWBrandRKievitJThomeerRT; Leiden-The Hague Spine Intervention Prognostic Study Group. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica from lumbar disc herniation: cost utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;336(7657):1351–4.
100.
van StelHFBuskensE. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:20.
101.
WeeHLMachinDLokeWC. Assessing differences in utility scores: a comparison of four widely used preference-based instruments. Value Health. 2007;10(4):256–65.
102.
WillemsDCJooreMAHendriksJJWoutersEFSeverensJL. Cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led telemonitoring intervention based on peak expiratory flow measurements in asthmatics: results of a randomised controlled trial. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2007;5:10.
103.
XieFLiSCLuoN. Comparison of the EuroQol and Short Form 6D in Singapore multiethnic Asian knee osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(6):1043–9.
104.
SavignyPKuntzeSWatsonP. Low Back Pain: Early Management of Persistent Non-Specific Low Back Pain. Full Guideline. London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners; 2009.
105.
KharroubiSABrazierJERobertsJO’HaganA. Modelling SF-6D health state preference data using a nonparametric Bayesian method. J Health Econ. 2007;26(3):597–612.
106.
LongworthLLongsonC. NICE methodology for technology appraisals: cutting edge or tried and trusted?Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):729–32.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
