PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München: Measuring quality of life in COPD patients: Comparing disease-specific supplements to the EQ-5D-5L.

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Szentes, B.L. ; Schwarzkopf, L. ; Kirsch, F. ; Schramm, A.* ; Leidl, R.

Measuring quality of life in COPD patients: Comparing disease-specific supplements to the EQ-5D-5L.

Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 20, 523-529 (2019)

Postprint

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Green

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

Objectives: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show impairments in health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to find a disease-specific questionnaire for routine application in large cohorts and to assess its additional explanatory power to generic HRQL tool (EQ-5D-5L). Methods: 1,350 participants of the disease management program COPD received the EQ-5D-5L combined with one of the three disease-specific tools: COPD Assessment Test (CAT), Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) or St. George’s Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (SGRQ) (450 participants each). We compared metric properties and evaluated the Germany-specific experience-based values (EBVS) and utilities in comparison to the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). We calculated the additional explanatory power of the identified disease-specific tool on VAS through regression analysis. Results: 344 patients returned the questionnaire. CAT, CCQ, and SGRQ group did not differ regarding baseline characteristics. The questionnaire specific response rates were 33.7% for CAT, 30.5% for CCQ, and 34.6% SGRQ, thereof 94.0%, 94.3%, and 65.6% valid answers, respectively. EBVS was better suited to reflect VAS than utilities. CAT increased the explanatory power by 10%. Conclusion: CAT outperformed CCQ and SGRQ, and it increased the explanatory power of VAS. EBV combined with CAT seems superior to only generic or disease-specific approaches.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Scopus
Cited By

Altmetric

1.828

0.594