Table 3.
Certainty of evidence for the measurement properties of each adult EQ-5D version
| PROM | EQ-5D-3L Self-reported version |
EQ-5D-3L Proxy-reported version |
EQ-5D-5L Self-reported version |
EQ-5D-5L Proxy-reported version |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall rating | Certainty of evidence | Articles (n) | Overall rating | Certainty of evidence | Articles (n) | Overall rating | Certainty of evidence | Articles (n) | Overall rating | Certainty of evidence | Articles (n) | |
| +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | +/−/? | High, moderate, low, very low | |||||
| Descriptive system | ||||||||||||
| Content validity | ||||||||||||
| Relevance | + | Very low | 1 (592)d | + | Very low | 1 (77)d | ||||||
| Comprehensiveness | − | Very low | 1 (592)d | + | Very low | 1 (77)d | ||||||
| Comprehensibility | + | Very low | 1 (592)d | + | Very low | 1 (77)d | ||||||
| Reliability | − | Very lowʀʀʀ¥ |
1 (106) |
|||||||||
| Construct validity | − | Lowʀ¥ | 1 (163)b | − | Lowʀ¥ | 4 (1437)a,b | ± | Not rated | 1 (849)e | |||
| EQ VAS | ||||||||||||
| Reliability | − | Low±¥ | 1 (139)a,b | − | Very low±±≠¥ | 1 (84)b | + | Lowʀ¥ | 2 (505)a | |||
| Construct validity | − | Very lowʀʀ±±¥ | 2 (212)b | − | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 4 (769)b | − | Very lowʀʀʀ¥≠ | 1 (87) | |||
| Responsiveness | + | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 2 (299) | + | Very lowʀʀʀ¥≠≠ | 1 (21)a | ± | Not rated | 1 (849)e | |||
| Utility score | ||||||||||||
| Reliability | − | Moderate¥ | 1 (156)a,b | − | Low¥≠ | 1 (95)a,b | + | Lowʀ¥ | 3 (611) | |||
| Construct validity | − | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 4 (1287)a,b | − | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 3 (371)b | − | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 2 (314) | |||
| Responsiveness | + | Very lowʀʀ¥ | 3 (433)a | ± | Not rated | 2 (197)e | ± | Not rated | 1 (849)e | |||
Overall ratings: ‘+’ = sufficient; ‘-’ = insufficient; ‘?’ = indeterminate; ‘±’ = inconsistent. Certainty of evidence: high, moderate, low, very low. Reasons of downgrade: ‘ʀ’ downgrade due to the risk of bias; ‘±’ downgrade due to inconsistency; ‘¥’ downgrade due to the indirectness; ‘≠’ downgrade due to the imprecision. We carefully sum the participants who underwent a test and retest according to the studies’ description
PROM patient-reported outcome measure, n number of participants considered for each measurement property
aWe considered the smallest number in the sum of the total sample by measurement property when a study had a variation in the number of participants
bWhen an article presented two or more studies (subsamples) on a measurement property
cWe did not consider the same sample twice in the sum of the total sample by measurement property when a study had overlapping samples (same sample in different articles)
dContent validity of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L were based in a previous systematic review of the health-related quality of life of patients in low back pain (Chiarotto, 2018 Journal of Clinical Epidemiology)
eWe considered as inconsistent because half of the studies were rated as sufficient and the other one as insufficient with unexplained reasons