The CQ-11D scale demonstrated superior discriminative validity (AUC 0.746) compared to the EQ-5D-5L (AUC 0.669) and SF-6D (AUC 0.734) scales for measuring health-related quality of life in the Chinese population.
Cross-Sectional (n=5,000)
Yes
Does the CQ-11D scale improve discriminative validity in measuring health-related quality of life compared to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in the Chinese population?
The CQ-11D scale demonstrates strong correlation with universal scales and superior sensitivity to population and disease differences in the Chinese population.
Absolute Event Rate: 0.746% vs 0.669%
p-value: p=<0.001
PURPOSE: To measure health-related quality of life in the Chinese population using three universal health utility scales (CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D) and to compare the differences in the results obtained by the different scales to provide a reference for future utility on health-related quality of life in the Chinese population. METHODS: According to the Chinese population's distribution area, gender, and age, quota sampling was conducted. Three scales, CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D, whose results were self-reported, were collected in succession after collecting respondents' demographic information. The health utility value and floor/ceiling effect were explained. Bland-Altman was used to evaluate the consistency, the intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation, and the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the discriminative validity of the scale. RESULTS: The mean utility values of the CQ-11D, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D scales, respectively, were 0.891, 0.927, and 0.841. The floor effect did not appear in any of the three scales, but the ceiling effect did, and the EQ-5D-5L ceiling effect was the most severe. The limits of the agreement interval for CQ-11D versus EQ-5D-5L in the total sample population were (-0.245,0.172); for CQ-11D versus SF-6D, they were (- 0.256,0.354); and for EQ-5D-5L versus SF-6D, they were (-0.199,0.371). The consistency of the three scales is satisfactory overall. In the total population, the intraclass correlation coefficient between CQ-11D and EQ-5D-5L was 0.709, while EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D were 0.0.565 and that between EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D was 0.472. According to the subject operation curve results, the area under the curve for the total sample population of CQ-11D was 0.746, EQ-5D-5L was 0.669, and SF-6D was 0.734. CONCLUSION: The CQ-11D is inferior to the EQ-5D-5L, but superior to the SF-6D. There is a strong correlation between the health utility values of the total population as measured by the three scales and those of the healthy population. The CQ-11D scale is the most sensitive to differences between populations and diseases.
Zhou et al. (Mon,) conducted a cross-sectional in General population (including healthy individuals and chronic disease patients) (n=5,000). CQ-11D scale vs. EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D scales was evaluated on Discriminative validity (Area Under the Curve) in the total sample population (p=<0.001). The CQ-11D scale demonstrated superior discriminative validity (AUC 0.746) compared to the EQ-5D-5L (AUC 0.669) and SF-6D (AUC 0.734) scales for measuring health-related quality of life in the Chinese population.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: