Validity, Reliability, and Responsiveness of the EQ-5D in Hematological Cancers: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.
Aleksandra Dudzisz, Grzegorz W Basak, Emilian Snarski et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review assessed the validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in adults with hematological cancers. It included 16 studies and 996 tests of measurement properties; 96% of results met the review’s criteria. High-certainty evidence supported sufficient construct validity across both versions’ indices and dimensions, as well as the EQ visual analog scale (VAS). Responsiveness evidence was limited, but 97% (101/104) of tests showed the expected directional change. The authors concluded that both EQ-5D versions may be used to assess health-related quality of life in this population, while reliability and responsiveness need further study.
Key findings
- High-certainty evidence supported sufficient construct validity for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L indices and dimensions, and the EQ VAS.
- Responsiveness was assessed in 104 tests; 97% (101/104) showed the expected directional change.
- Test-retest reliability evidence was limited to the EQ-5D-5L index and EQ VAS, with moderate and low certainty, respectively.
Why it matters
Health-related quality-of-life measures can inform assessment of patient-reported health in hematological cancers. This review supports the construct validity of both EQ-5D versions in this population, while clarifying that evidence is less established for reliability and responsiveness. The distinction can help clinicians and researchers interpret EQ-5D results with appropriate caution.
What to keep in mind
Evidence for test-retest reliability was limited, and responsiveness findings were based on 104 tests, mostly of the EQ-5D-5L index.