Background It is not clear whether 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) utilities based on recently developed value sets are more responsive than 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) utilities. Objectives The study aims were to compare (1) the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L utilities and (2) the responsiveness of these utilities with the Short Form–6 Dimension (SF-6D) and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) utilities to the treatment beneft of cataract surgery. Methods A total of 148 patients were interviewed before and after their cataract surgery using EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, and HUI3. Responsiveness was assessed for all measures using the mean change (post-treatment—pre-treatment), standardized efect size (SES), standardized response mean (SRM), and F-statistic. Results Using the Singapore value sets, mean change for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L utilities was 0.016 and 0.028, SES was 0.097 and 0.199; SRM was 0.091 and 0.196; and F-statistic was 1.2 and 5.7, respectively. Similar trends were observed using the UK/England EQ-5D value sets, although the magnitude was slightly smaller. The mean change, SES, SRM and F-statistics for SF-6D (UK value set) were 0.020, 0.234, 0.249, and 9.2, respectively. The values of mean change, SES, SRM and F-statistics for HUI3 (Canada value set) were 0.080, 0.472, 0.474, and 33.3, respectively. Conclusions The EQ-5D-5L utilities tend to be more responsive than the EQ-5D-3L utilities to treatment benefts of cataract surgery. The HUI3 utilities are more responsive than both the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D, and SF-6D utilities may be slightly more responsive than the EQ-5D-5L for assessing patients undergoing cataract surgery

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-00354-7, hdl.handle.net/1765/118168
Journal The Patient: patient-centered outcomes research
Citation
Gandhi, M., Ang, M., Teo, K., Wong, C.W., Wei, Y.C.H., Tan, R.L.Y., … Luo, N. (2019). EQ-5D-5L is More Responsive than EQ-5D-3L to Treatment Benefit of Cataract Surgery. The Patient: patient-centered outcomes research, 12(4), 383–392. doi:10.1007/s40271-018-00354-7