为什么EQ-5D和牛津髋关节和膝关节评分测量的东西不一样?

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tim Benson
{"title":"为什么EQ-5D和牛津髋关节和膝关节评分测量的东西不一样?","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

治疗的结果对患者和医疗保健专业人员来说总是至关重要的。已经制定了患者报告的结果测量方法来衡量结果。自2009年以来,英国所有接受髋关节和膝关节置换手术的患者都被要求分别完成通用的EuroQol EQ- 5d - 3l和EQ视觉模拟量表(EQ- vas)以及髋关节和膝关节的特定条件牛津髋关节评分或牛津膝关节评分。方法:EQ-5D-3L有五个维度,每个维度有三个选项。每个组合都相对于可想象的最佳健康状态(值1.0)和死亡状态(值0)进行了缩放,以产生一个相对严重程度评分(EQ-Index),范围从-0.594到1.0。这可以用来计算质量调整寿命年。EQ-VAS是一个从0(死亡)到100(可想象的最佳健康状态)的视觉模拟量表。牛津髋部和膝关节的分数彼此相似。他们有12个问题,每个问题有5个选项,得分为0-4。将这些分数相加,给出一个范围从0(没有问题)到48(所有问题都有极端问题)的刻度。使用来自国民健康服务(National Health Service)患者报告结果测量数据库的4万多例髋关节和膝关节置换术患者的记录,我们将EQ-5D-3L与牛津髋关节和膝关节评分进行比较。为了便于比较,每个分数都被算术转换为普通的0(最低)到100(最高)的比例。结果:EQ-Index、EQ-VAS和Oxford评分在变化、效应大小和相关性方面给出了非常不同的结果。讨论:需要更多的研究,但提出了一些推测性的想法,可以解释这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why EQ-5D and the Oxford Hip and Knee scores do not measure the same things.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信