Purpose Although the EQ-5D has a long history of use in a wide range of populations, the newer five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) has not yet had such extensive experience. This systematic review summarizes the available published scientific evidence on the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L. Methods Pre-determined key words and exclusion criteria were used to systematically search publications from 2011 to 2019. Information on study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted: specifically, EQ-5D-5L distribution (including ceiling and floor), missing values, reliability (test–retest), validity (convergent, known-groups, discriminate) and responsiveness (distribution, anchor-based). EQ-5D-5L index value means, ceiling and correlation coefficients (convergent validity) were pooled across the studies using random-effects models. Results Of the 889 identified publications, 99 were included for review, representing 32 countries. Musculoskeletal/orthopedic problems and cancer (n = 8 each) were most often studied. Most papers found missing values (17 of 17 papers) and floor effects (43 of 48 papers) to be unproblematic. While the index was found to be reliable (9 of 9 papers), individual dimensions exhibited instability over time. Index values and dimensions demonstrated moderate to strong correlations with global health measures, other multi-attribute utility instruments, physical/functional health, pain, activities of daily living, and clinical/biological measures. The instrument was not correlated with life satisfaction and cognition/communication measures. Responsiveness was addressed by 15 studies, finding moderate effect sizes when confined to studied subgroups with improvements in health. Conclusions The EQ-5D-5L exhibits excellent psychometric properties across a broad range of populations, conditions and settings. Rigorous exploration of its responsiveness is needed.

BackgroundAssociations between measures of subjective health and mortality risk have previously been shown. We assessed the impact and comparative predictive performance of a multi-biomarker panel on this association.MethodsData from 4,261 individuals aged 20-79 years recruited for the population-based Study of Health in Pomerania was used. During an average 9.7 year follow-up, 456 deaths (10.7%) occurred. Subjective health was assessed by SF-12 derived physical (PCS-12) and mental component summaries (MCS-12), and a single-item self-rated health (SRH) question. We implemented Cox proportional-hazards regression models to investigate the association of subjective health with mortality and to assess the impact of a combination of 10 biomarkers on this association. Variable selection procedures were used to identify a parsimonious set of subjective health measures and biomarkers, whose predictive ability was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, C-statistics, and reclassification methods.ResultsIn age- and gender-adjusted Cox models, poor SRH (hazard ratio (HR), 2.07; 95% CI, 1.34-3.20) and low PCS-12 scores (lowest vs. highest quartile: HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.31-2.33) were significantly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality; an association independent of various covariates and biomarkers. Furthermore, selected subjective health measures yielded a significantly higher C-statistic (0.883) compared to the selected biomarker panel (0.872), whereas a combined assessment showed the highest C-statistic (0.887) with a highly significant integrated discrimination improvement of 1.5% (p < 0.01).ConclusionAdding biomarker information did not affect the association of subjective health measures with mortality, but significantly improved risk stratification. Thus, a combined assessment of self-reported subjective health and measured biomarkers may be useful to identify high-risk individuals for intensified monitoring.