Author
Listed:
- Caique Melo do Espirito Santo
(Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)
- Verônica Souza Santos
(Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)
- Alessandro Chiarotto
(Erasmus MC, University Medical Center)
- Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto
(Universidade Cidade de São Paulo)
- Tiê P. Yamato
(Universidade Cidade de São Paulo
The University of Sydney
Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District
Center for Pain, Health and Lifestyle)
Abstract
Background The EQ-5D instruments have been widely used to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in child and adolescent populations, especially the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L (beta version). Although not specifically designed for younger users, the adult versions (EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L) are also used in these populations. While the measurement properties of these instruments have been evaluated in children and adolescents, no systematic review to date has employed a rigorous method to assess risk of bias. Additionally, quality criteria for good measurement properties and certainty of evidence have not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to summarize and critically appraise the evidence on the measurement properties of all EQ-5D instruments in children and adolescents. Methods We conducted electronic searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, EconLit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases up to May 2024. We included studies measuring HRQoL using either the self-reported or proxy-reported version of the EQ-5D instruments—EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-Y-3L, and EQ-5D-Y-5L—using the descriptive system, visual analogue scale, and/or utility score in children and adolescents up to 19 years of age, and that tested at least one measurement property (e.g., reliability). The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology was followed to assess risk of bias, to score results for measurement properties, and to perform an evidence synthesis using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results From 3586 records identified through the search, 65 studies were included in this systematic review. We found moderate certainty of evidence of sufficient comprehensibility and comprehensiveness of the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L. Furthermore, we found very low certainty of evidence of inconsistent relevance for the EQ-5D-Y-3L, whereas the EQ-5D-Y-5L had sufficient relevance. Almost all the measurement properties (reliability, hypothesis testing for construct validity, and responsiveness) considering all the EQ-5D versions ranged from moderate certainty of evidence of insufficient results to very low certainty of evidence of insufficient results. Conclusion There is moderate certainty of evidence that the EQ-5D-Y-3L and EQ-5D-Y-5L have sufficient content validity. Both instruments can be recommended to measure HRQoL in children and adolescents aged 8–15 years. However, most of the measurement properties across all EQ-5D versions showed insufficient results, with certainty of evidence ranging from moderate to very low due to inconsistency and doubtful to inadequate risk of bias. Therefore, further research is needed to improve the methodological quality of studies on EQ-5D instruments for children and adolescents. Systematic Review Registration International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020218382 and Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/r8kt9/ .
Suggested Citation
Caique Melo do Espirito Santo & Verônica Souza Santos & Alessandro Chiarotto & Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto & Tiê P. Yamato, 2025.
"Measurement Properties of the EQ-5D Instruments in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review,"
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 797-822, September.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00953-0
DOI: 10.1007/s40258-025-00953-0
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:23:y:2025:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-025-00953-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.