IntroductionGeneric multiattribute utility instruments (MAUIs) are efficient tools for determining and enumerating health-related quality of life. MAUIs accomplish this by generating health state utilities (HSUs) via algorithms. Minimal important differences (MIDs) assist with the interpretation of HSUs by estimating minimum changes that are clinically significant. The overall goal of the proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is the development of comprehensive guidelines for MID estimation.Methods and analysisThis protocol defines a systematic review and meta-analysis of MIDs for generic MAUIs. The proposed research will involve a comprehensive investigation of 10 databases (EconLit, IDEAs database, INAHTA database, Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, Emcare, JBIEBP and CINAHL) from 1 June 2022 to 7 June 2022, and will be performed and reported in accordance with several validated guidelines, principally the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The quality of papers, considered for inclusion in the review, will be appraised using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments, inter alia.Narrative analysis will involve identifying the characteristics of MIDs including methods of calculation, sources of heterogeneity, and validation. Meta-analysis will also be conducted. The descriptive element of meta-analysis will involve the generation of I2statistics and Galbraith plots of MID heterogeneity. Together with narrative analysis, this will allow sources of MID heterogeniety to be identified. A multilevel mixed model, estimated via restricted maximum likelihood estimation, will be constructed for the purposes of meta-regression. Meta-regression will attempt to enumerate the effects of sources of heterogeneity on MID estimates. Meta-analysis will be concluded with pooling of MIDs via a linear random-effects model.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review, as it will aggregate data from published literature. Methods of dissemination will include publication in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as presentation at conferences and seminars.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021261821.
Background Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an inflammatory, neurodegenerative disease of the central nervous system which results in disability over time and reduced quality of life. To increase the sensitivity of the EQ-5D-5L for psychosocial health, four bolt-on items from the AQoL-8D were used to create the nine-item EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial. We aimed to externally validate the EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial in a large cohort of people with MS (pwMS) and explore the discriminatory power of the new instrument with EQ-5D-5L/AQoL-8D. Methods A large representative sample from the Australian MS Longitudinal Study completed the AQoL-8D and EQ-5D-5L (including EQ VAS) and both instruments health state utilities (HSUs) were scored using Australian tariffs. Sociodemographic/clinical data were also collected. External validity of EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial scoring algorithm was assessed with mean absolute errors (MAE) and Spearman’s correlation coefficient. Discriminatory sensitivity was assessed with an examination of ceiling/floor effects, and disability severity classifications. Results Among 1683 participants (mean age: 58.6 years; 80% female), over half (55%) had moderate or severe disability. MAE (0.063) and the distribution of the prediction error were similar to the original development study. Mean (± standard deviation) HSUs were EQ-5D-5L: 0.58 ± 0.32, EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial 0.62 ± 0.29, and AQoL-8D: 0.63 ± 0.20. N = 157 (10%) scored perfect health (i.e. HSU = 1.0) on the EQ-5D-5L, but reported a mean HSU of 0.90 on the alternative instruments. The Sleep bolt-on dimension was particularly important for pwMS. Conclusions The EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial is more sensitive than the EQ-5D-5L in pwMS whose HSUs approach those reflecting full health. When respondent burden is taken into account, the EQ-5D-5L-Psychosocial is preferential to the AQoL-8D. We suggest a larger confirmatory study comparing all prevalent multi-attribute utility instruments for pwMS.
Background Health state utilities (HSU) are a health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) input for cost-utility analyses used for resource allocation decisions, including medication reimbursement. New Zealand (NZ) guidelines recommend the EQ-5D instruments; however, the EQ-5D-5L may not sufficiently capture psychosocial health. We evaluated HRQoL among people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in NZ using the EQ-5D-5L and assessed the instrument’s discriminatory sensitivity for a NZ MS cohort. Methods Participants were recruited from the NZ MS Prevalence Study. Participants self-completed a 45-min online survey that included the EQ-5D-5L/EQ-VAS. Disability severity was classified using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) to categorise participant disability as mild (EDSS: 0–3.5), moderate (EDSS: 4.0–6.0) and severe (EDSS: 6.5–9.5). Anxiety/depression were also measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS). In the absence of an EQ-5D-5L NZ tariff, HSUs were derived using an Australian tariff. We evaluated associations between HSUs and participant characteristics with linear regression models. Results 254 participants entered the study. Mean age was 55.2 years, 79.5% were female. Mean (SD) EQ-5D-5L HSU was 0.58 (0.33). Mean (SD) HSUs for disability categories were: mild 0.80 ± 0.17, moderate 0.57 ± 0.21 and severe 0.14 ± 0.32. Twelve percent reported HSU = 1.0 (i.e., no problems in any domain). Participants who had never used a disease-modifying therapy reported a lower mean HSU. Multivariable modelling found that the HADS anxiety score was not associated with EQ-5D-5L. Conclusions HRQoL for people with MS in NZ was lower than comparable countries, including Australia. We suggest a comparison with other generic tools that may have improved sensitivity to mental health.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.