Skip to content

Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Standard

Once Bitten Twice Shy : Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L. / Round, Jeff.

In: PharmacoEconomics, Vol. 36, No. 6, 01.06.2018, p. 641-643.

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Round, Jeff. / Once Bitten Twice Shy : Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L. In: PharmacoEconomics. 2018 ; Vol. 36, No. 6. pp. 641-643.

Bibtex

@article{277d162193b143c19a11b31c350e42c3,
title = "Once Bitten Twice Shy: Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L",
abstract = "The EQ-5D-3L version has long been the preferred measure of health-related utility estimates for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Over time, concerns about the EQ-5D-3L have been raised, focusing on its sensitivity to changes in health state, ceiling effects, and the uneven distribution of values across the states. In response, the EuroQol group developed analternative five-level version, the EQ-5D-5L, and in 2013 NICE recommended the 5L version for use in reference case analyses. Subsequently, the new version of the instrument has been widely adopted in clinical research and for economic evaluation, typically at the expense of the EQ-5D-3L version. Yet this begs the question and assumes the 5L version is simply a minor change to the 3L version that can be adopted without consideration of its own merits. It is right to ask, however, whether it is more than just a minor variant of the 3L. The 3L version has been tested and validated in a wide range of patient groups – the same cannot yet be said for the 5L version. Additionally, the 3L version was adopted at a time when reliable alternative measures of outcome were scarce – the samecannot be said now. Here I argue that analysts and reimbursement authorities such as NICE should exercise caution and consider the whole range of alternative tools before adopting the 5L version as the reference case.",
author = "Jeff Round",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "641--643",
journal = "PharmacoEconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing AG",
number = "6",

}

RIS - suitable for import to EndNote

TY - JOUR

T1 - Once Bitten Twice Shy

T2 - Thinking Carefully Before Adopting the EQ-5D-5L

AU - Round, Jeff

PY - 2018/6/1

Y1 - 2018/6/1

N2 - The EQ-5D-3L version has long been the preferred measure of health-related utility estimates for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Over time, concerns about the EQ-5D-3L have been raised, focusing on its sensitivity to changes in health state, ceiling effects, and the uneven distribution of values across the states. In response, the EuroQol group developed analternative five-level version, the EQ-5D-5L, and in 2013 NICE recommended the 5L version for use in reference case analyses. Subsequently, the new version of the instrument has been widely adopted in clinical research and for economic evaluation, typically at the expense of the EQ-5D-3L version. Yet this begs the question and assumes the 5L version is simply a minor change to the 3L version that can be adopted without consideration of its own merits. It is right to ask, however, whether it is more than just a minor variant of the 3L. The 3L version has been tested and validated in a wide range of patient groups – the same cannot yet be said for the 5L version. Additionally, the 3L version was adopted at a time when reliable alternative measures of outcome were scarce – the samecannot be said now. Here I argue that analysts and reimbursement authorities such as NICE should exercise caution and consider the whole range of alternative tools before adopting the 5L version as the reference case.

AB - The EQ-5D-3L version has long been the preferred measure of health-related utility estimates for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Over time, concerns about the EQ-5D-3L have been raised, focusing on its sensitivity to changes in health state, ceiling effects, and the uneven distribution of values across the states. In response, the EuroQol group developed analternative five-level version, the EQ-5D-5L, and in 2013 NICE recommended the 5L version for use in reference case analyses. Subsequently, the new version of the instrument has been widely adopted in clinical research and for economic evaluation, typically at the expense of the EQ-5D-3L version. Yet this begs the question and assumes the 5L version is simply a minor change to the 3L version that can be adopted without consideration of its own merits. It is right to ask, however, whether it is more than just a minor variant of the 3L. The 3L version has been tested and validated in a wide range of patient groups – the same cannot yet be said for the 5L version. Additionally, the 3L version was adopted at a time when reliable alternative measures of outcome were scarce – the samecannot be said now. Here I argue that analysts and reimbursement authorities such as NICE should exercise caution and consider the whole range of alternative tools before adopting the 5L version as the reference case.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045148900&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3

DO - 10.1007/s40273-018-0636-3

M3 - Comment/debate

VL - 36

SP - 641

EP - 643

JO - PharmacoEconomics

JF - PharmacoEconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 6

ER -