Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目的：本研究描述了基于偏好的健康相关生活质量（HRQOL）工具的报告，EQ-5D,并提出改善报告和减少研究浪费的策略。EQ-5D是一种经过验证的工具，广泛用于卫生经济评估，可用于告知卫生政策。
方法：作为报告EQ-5D效用权重在冠心病患者中的系统性综述的一部分，我们注意到一些论文的数据不能在荟萃分析中重复使用的原因，包括是否报告了健康效用权重和足够的统计细节。研究浪费的量化使用：(1)排除的论文百分比和样本量，(2)研究人员审查报告不佳的论文的时间和成本。
结果：我们的搜索策略发现5942篇论文。在标题和摘要筛选中，93%被排除在外。在筛选的379篇全文论文中，使用EQ-5D报告了130篇论文。这些研究中只有46%(60/130)报告了能够进行荟萃分析的效用权重和/或统计特性。只有67％的论文在标题或摘要中报告了EQ-5D。由于报告不佳，总样本量为133,298被排除在外。对于我们的审查，研究人员浪费的时间成本估计在3816美元至13,279美元之间。
结论：EQ-5D数据的不良报告造成了研究浪费，可能有用的数据被排除在荟萃分析和经济评估之外。HRQOL工具的不良报告也会造成浪费，因为花了额外的时间来审查随后被排除在外的系统审查文件。
结论：使用EQ-5D的研究应报告效用权重和适当的汇总统计数据，以便在荟萃分析中重复使用，并为卫生政策提供更有力的证据。我们建议作者根据当前的报告指南（CONSORT-PRO和SPIRIT-PROExtensions）在标题或摘要中报告HRQOL工具，以便其他研究人员更容易找到。经过验证的仪器也应在医学主题词（MeSH）中列出，以改善以前研究的编目和检索。
方法：作为报告EQ-5D效用权重在冠心病患者中的系统性综述的一部分，我们注意到一些论文的数据不能在荟萃分析中重复使用的原因，包括是否报告了健康效用权重和足够的统计细节。研究浪费的量化使用：(1)排除的论文百分比和样本量，(2)研究人员审查报告不佳的论文的时间和成本。
结果：我们的搜索策略发现5942篇论文。在标题和摘要筛选中，93%被排除在外。在筛选的379篇全文论文中，使用EQ-5D报告了130篇论文。这些研究中只有46%(60/130)报告了能够进行荟萃分析的效用权重和/或统计特性。只有67％的论文在标题或摘要中报告了EQ-5D。由于报告不佳，总样本量为133,298被排除在外。对于我们的审查，研究人员浪费的时间成本估计在3816美元至13,279美元之间。
结论：EQ-5D数据的不良报告造成了研究浪费，可能有用的数据被排除在荟萃分析和经济评估之外。HRQOL工具的不良报告也会造成浪费，因为花了额外的时间来审查随后被排除在外的系统审查文件。
结论：使用EQ-5D的研究应报告效用权重和适当的汇总统计数据，以便在荟萃分析中重复使用，并为卫生政策提供更有力的证据。我们建议作者根据当前的报告指南（CONSORT-PRO和SPIRIT-PROExtensions）在标题或摘要中报告HRQOL工具，以便其他研究人员更容易找到。经过验证的仪器也应在医学主题词（MeSH）中列出，以改善以前研究的编目和检索。
