↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40273-018-0628-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F. Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin

Abstract

Three EQ-5D value sets (EQ-5D-3L, crosswalk, and EQ-5D-5L) are now available for cost-utility analysis in the UK and/or England. The value sets' characteristics differ, and it is important to assess the implications of these differences. The aim of this paper is to compare the three value sets. We carried out analysis comparing the predicted values from each value set, and investigated how differences in health on the descriptive system is reflected in the utility score by assessing the value of adjacent states. We also assessed differences in values using data from patients who completed both EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. The distribution of the value sets systematically differed. EQ-5D-5L values were higher than EQ-5D-3L/crosswalk values. The overall range and difference between adjacent states was smaller. In the patient data, the EQ-5D-5L produced higher values across all conditions and there was some evidence that the value sets rank different health conditions in a similar severity order. There are important differences between the value sets. Due to the smaller range of EQ-5D-5L values, the possible change in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) might be reduced, but they will apply to both control and intervention groups, and will depend on whether the gain is in quality of life, survival, or both. The increased sensitivity of EQ-5D-5L may also favour QALY gains even if the changes in utility are smaller. Further work should assess the impact of the different value sets on cost effectiveness by repeating the analysis on clinical trial data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Professor 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Unspecified 2 11%
Other 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 32%
Unspecified 4 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 11%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Other 3 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,695,682
of 12,591,564 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#154
of 1,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,298
of 271,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#5
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,591,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 271,305 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.