Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study.
EQ-5D
Health utility
Health-related quality-of-life
Meta-analysis
Research waste
Systematic reviews
Journal
Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation
ISSN: 1573-2649
Titre abrégé: Qual Life Res
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9210257
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
accepted:
03
01
2022
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
16
9
2022
entrez:
24
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study describes the reporting of the preference-based health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instrument, the EQ-5D, and proposes strategies to improve reporting and reduce research waste. The EQ-5D is a validated instrument widely used for health economic evaluation and is useful for informing health policy. As part of a systematic review of papers reporting EQ-5D utility weights in patients with coronary artery disease, we noted the reasons data from some papers could not be reused in a meta-analysis, including whether health utility weights and sufficient statistical details were reported. Research waste was quantified using: (1) the percentage of papers and sample size excluded, and (2) researcher time and cost reviewing poorly reported papers. Our search strategy found 5942 papers. At title and abstract screening 93% were excluded. Of the 379 full text papers screened, 130 papers reported using EQ-5D. Only 46% (60/130) of those studies reported utility weights and/or statistical properties enabling meta-analysis. Only 67% of included papers had reported EQ-5D in the title or abstract. A total sample size of 133,298 was excluded because of poor reporting. The cost of researcher time wasted estimated to be between $3816 and $13,279 for our review. Poor reporting of EQ-5D data creates research waste where potentially useful data are excluded from meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Poor reporting of HRQOL instruments also creates waste due to additional time spent reviewing papers for systematic reviews that are subsequently excluded. Studies using the EQ-5D should report utility weights with appropriate summary statistics to enable reuse in meta-analysis and more robust evidence for health policy. We recommend authors report the HRQOL instrument in the title or abstract in line with current reporting guidelines (CONSORT-PRO and SPIRIT-PRO Extensions) to make it easier for other researchers to find. Validated instruments should also be listed in the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to improve cataloguing and retrieval of previous research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35072906
doi: 10.1007/s11136-022-03079-1
pii: 10.1007/s11136-022-03079-1
pmc: PMC9470638
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2931-2938Subventions
Organisme : national health and medical research council
ID : APP1117784
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 17;5(1):140
pubmed: 27535658
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):267-76
pubmed: 24411647
Qual Life Res. 2019 Feb;28(2):321-334
pubmed: 30194626
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):257-66
pubmed: 24411650
Lancet. 2014 Mar 29;383(9923):1124
pubmed: 24679623
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):84-87
pubmed: 28096751
BMJ Open. 2020 Jul 29;10(7):e039311
pubmed: 32727739
Value Health. 2019 Mar;22(3):267-275
pubmed: 30832964
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Oct;10(4):245-50
pubmed: 16259692
JAMA. 2013 Feb 27;309(8):814-22
pubmed: 23443445
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Mar 31;7:27
pubmed: 19335878
JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483-494
pubmed: 29411037
Lancet. 2014 Jan 11;383(9912):156-65
pubmed: 24411644
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 8;7(11):e015888
pubmed: 29122784
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Trials. 2017 Mar 14;18(1):122
pubmed: 28288676
Lancet. 2009 Jul 4;374(9683):86-9
pubmed: 19525005