Statistical Methods for Analyzing EQ-5D in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Literature Review.

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Jiajun Yan, Brittany Humphries, Ruinan Xie, Ziran Yin, Zhenyan Bo, Sha Diao, Jing Cai, Preston Tse, Meixuan Li, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Shun Fu Lee, Feng Xie
{"title":"Statistical Methods for Analyzing EQ-5D in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Jiajun Yan, Brittany Humphries, Ruinan Xie, Ziran Yin, Zhenyan Bo, Sha Diao, Jing Cai, Preston Tse, Meixuan Li, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Shun Fu Lee, Feng Xie","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the application of statistical methods for analyzing treatment effect on EQ-5D in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We searched 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception through 2021) and www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrial: </strong>gov. Eligible studies were RCTs that analyzed postbaseline EQ-5D data by treatment group. Information on trial characteristics, EQ-5D data characteristics, and statistical methods were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results by dimension response, EQ visual analog scale (EQ VAS), and EQ-5D utility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2125 trials met the eligibility criteria. EQ-5D was commonly considered a secondary (n = 1219, 57.4%) or exploratory (n = 775, 36.5%) endpoint in RCTs. EQ-5D utilities were the most analyzed. Both utilities and EQ VAS were primarily analyzed in numerical format. The most common statistical models for analyzing utilities were the linear fixed-effect model for single postbaseline (192/589, 32.6%) and the linear mixed-effect model for multiple post-baselines (338/984, 34.3%). Of the 2054 studies that analyzed numerical EQ-5D, 221 (10.8%) examined model assumptions and 438 (21.3%) adjusted for the baseline score. Missing data were explicitly assessed in 661 trials, among which 347 (52.5% of 661) applied imputations, with the 2 most used imputation methods being multiple imputations (n = 200, 57.6% of 347) and last observation carried forward (n = 106, 30.5% of 347).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review found that health utilities are the most frequently analyzed EQ-5D data collected in clinical trials, followed by EQ VAS. Significant variation was observed in the selection of models, with most trials lacking adjustments for baseline data and appropriate methods for handling missing data.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.02.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the application of statistical methods for analyzing treatment effect on EQ-5D in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Method: We searched 2 electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception through 2021) and www.

Clinicaltrial: gov. Eligible studies were RCTs that analyzed postbaseline EQ-5D data by treatment group. Information on trial characteristics, EQ-5D data characteristics, and statistical methods were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results by dimension response, EQ visual analog scale (EQ VAS), and EQ-5D utility.

Results: A total of 2125 trials met the eligibility criteria. EQ-5D was commonly considered a secondary (n = 1219, 57.4%) or exploratory (n = 775, 36.5%) endpoint in RCTs. EQ-5D utilities were the most analyzed. Both utilities and EQ VAS were primarily analyzed in numerical format. The most common statistical models for analyzing utilities were the linear fixed-effect model for single postbaseline (192/589, 32.6%) and the linear mixed-effect model for multiple post-baselines (338/984, 34.3%). Of the 2054 studies that analyzed numerical EQ-5D, 221 (10.8%) examined model assumptions and 438 (21.3%) adjusted for the baseline score. Missing data were explicitly assessed in 661 trials, among which 347 (52.5% of 661) applied imputations, with the 2 most used imputation methods being multiple imputations (n = 200, 57.6% of 347) and last observation carried forward (n = 106, 30.5% of 347).

Conclusions: This review found that health utilities are the most frequently analyzed EQ-5D data collected in clinical trials, followed by EQ VAS. Significant variation was observed in the selection of models, with most trials lacking adjustments for baseline data and appropriate methods for handling missing data.

随机临床试验中EQ-5D的统计分析方法——系统文献综述。
目的:通过系统的文献综述,总结统计学方法在随机对照试验中分析EQ-5D治疗效果的应用。方法:我们检索了两个电子数据库(MEDLINE和EMBASE,从成立到2021年)和www.Clinicaltrial: gov。符合条件的研究是按治疗组分析基线后EQ-5D数据的随机对照试验。提取试验特征、EQ-5D数据特征及统计方法等信息。描述性统计采用维度反应、EQ VAS和EQ- 5d效用对结果进行汇总。结果:共有2125项试验符合入选标准。在随机对照试验中,EQ-5D通常被认为是次要终点(n=1219, 57.4%)或探索性终点(n=775, 36.5%)。EQ-5D效用分析最多。效用和EQ VAS主要以数值形式进行分析。分析公用事业最常用的统计模型是单一后基线线性固定效应模型(192/589,32.6%)和多个后基线线性混合效应模型(338/984,34.3%)。在分析EQ-5D数值的2054项研究中,221项(10.8%)检查了模型假设,438项(21.3%)对基线评分进行了调整。661项试验明确评估了缺失数据,其中347项(661项中的52.5%)采用了归算方法,其中最常用的两种归算方法是多重归算(n=200, 347项中的57.6%)和最后一次观测结转(n=106, 347项中的30.5%)。结论:本综述发现,在临床试验中收集的EQ- 5d数据中,卫生设施是最常被分析的,其次是EQ VAS。在模型的选择上观察到显著的差异,大多数试验缺乏对基线数据的调整和处理缺失数据的适当方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信