Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population
Comparing the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems to assess their ceiling effects in the US general population
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1524-4733.2006.00108.x
复制
发表时间：
2006-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Thomas, Joseph, III
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bharmal, Murtuza;Thomas, Joseph, III
目的：比较EuroQol（EQ-5D）和SF-6D（源自SF-12），以评估EQ-5D和SF-6D描述性系统中的任何上限效应。此外，身体成分摘要（PCS-12），心理成分摘要（MCS-12）和欧洲生活质量视觉模拟量表（EQ-VAS）进行了比较，他们的区分能力，以检测不同的发病率和社会人口学特征的个人之间的差异。共有11，248名18岁或以上的个人，并对所有的研究变量的数据被纳入了analysis.Results：共有5104人（47%）报告没有限制的所有EQ-5D的尺寸和只有683（5.8%）被归类为完全健康的SF-6D描述系统的基础上。在EQ-5D无限制的受访者中，约有49%的人报告在SF-6D上感到“紧张或沮丧和低落”、“有点”（2级）或“一些”（3级）。在EQ-5D描述性系统无限制的个体中，报告冠心病、心绞痛、糖尿病、心肌梗死、高血压或关节疼痛的受试者的PCS-12评分和EQ-VAS评分显著低于报告无医学状况的受试者。使用PCS-12的医疗条件的效果大小大于使用EQ-VAS.Conclusions的效果大小：与EQ-5D描述系统不同，SF-6D描述系统来自SF-12似乎没有天花板效应。然而，SF-6D不区分在EQ-5D上报告完全健康的不同发病率个体，PCS-12和EQ-VAS也是如此。
Objectives: The EuroQol (EQ-5D) and SF-6D (derived from the SF-12) were compared to assess any ceiling effect in the EQ-5D and the SF-6D descriptive systems. In addition, the Physical Component Summary (PCS-12), the Mental Component Summary (MCS-12) and the EuroQol Visual Analog Scale (EQ-VAS) were compared on their discriminative ability to detect differences among individuals with different morbidities and sociodemographic characteristics.Methods: Data from the 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey were used for the analysis. A total of 11,248 individuals that were 18 years or older and had data on all the study variables were included in the analysis.Results: A total of 5104 individuals (47%) reported no limitations on all of the EQ-5D dimensions and only 683 (5.8%) were classified in full health based on the SF-6D descriptive system. Approximately 49% of the respondents that reported no limitations on the EQ-5D reported feeling "tense or downhearted and low," "a little," (level 2) or "some" (level 3) of the time on SF-6D. PCS-12 scores and EQ-VAS scores among individuals reporting no limitations on the EQ-5D descriptive system were significantly lower for respondents reporting coronary heart disease, angina, diabetes, myocardial infarction, high blood pressure or joint pain compared with respondents that reported no medical condition. Effect sizes for medical conditions using the PCS-12 were larger than the effect sizes using the EQ-VAS.Conclusions: Unlike the EQ-5D descriptive system, the SF-6D descriptive system derived from the SF-12 does not seem to have a ceiling effect. Nevertheless, the SF-6D does not discriminate between individuals with different morbidities who report full health on the EQ-5D, as does the PCS-12 and the EQ-VAS.