{"title":"Why EQ-5D and the Oxford Hip and Knee scores do not measure the same things.","authors":"Tim Benson","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The outcome of treatment is always paramount for patients and healthcare professionals. Patient-reported outcome measures have been developed to measure outcomes.Since 2009, all patients in England having hip and knee replacement surgery have been asked to complete the generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the condition-specific Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score for hips and knees, respectively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>EQ-5D-3L has five dimensions with three options each. Each combination has been scaled relative to the best conceivable health state (value 1.0) and the state of dead (value 0) to produce a relative severity score (EQ-Index) with a range from -0.594 to 1.0. This can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. The EQ-VAS is a visual analogue scale from 0 (dead) to 100 (best conceivable health state).The Oxford Hip and Knee scores are similar to each other. They have 12 questions with five options each, scored 0-4. These scores are added, giving a scale with range 0 (no problems) to 48 (extreme problems on all questions).Using over 40 000 records for patients undergoing hip and knee replacements from the National Health Service patient-reported outcome measure database, we compare EQ-5D-3L with the Oxford Hip and Knee scores. To aid comparison, each score was transformed arithmetically to a common 0 (floor) to 100 (ceiling) scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EQ-Index, EQ-VAS and the Oxford scores give very different results in terms of change, effect size and correlation.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>More research is needed, but some speculative ideas are put forward, which could explain these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12161340/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The outcome of treatment is always paramount for patients and healthcare professionals. Patient-reported outcome measures have been developed to measure outcomes.Since 2009, all patients in England having hip and knee replacement surgery have been asked to complete the generic EuroQol EQ-5D-3L and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the condition-specific Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score for hips and knees, respectively.
Methods: EQ-5D-3L has five dimensions with three options each. Each combination has been scaled relative to the best conceivable health state (value 1.0) and the state of dead (value 0) to produce a relative severity score (EQ-Index) with a range from -0.594 to 1.0. This can be used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years. The EQ-VAS is a visual analogue scale from 0 (dead) to 100 (best conceivable health state).The Oxford Hip and Knee scores are similar to each other. They have 12 questions with five options each, scored 0-4. These scores are added, giving a scale with range 0 (no problems) to 48 (extreme problems on all questions).Using over 40 000 records for patients undergoing hip and knee replacements from the National Health Service patient-reported outcome measure database, we compare EQ-5D-3L with the Oxford Hip and Knee scores. To aid comparison, each score was transformed arithmetically to a common 0 (floor) to 100 (ceiling) scale.
Results: EQ-Index, EQ-VAS and the Oxford scores give very different results in terms of change, effect size and correlation.
Discussion: More research is needed, but some speculative ideas are put forward, which could explain these findings.