Are indirect utility measures reliable and responsive in rheumatoid arthritis patients?

Background: Preference-based, generic measures are increasingly being used to measure quality of life and as sources for quality weights in the estimation of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, among the most commonly used instruments (the Health Utilities Index 2 and 3 [HUI2 and HUI3], the EuroQoL-5D [EQ-5D], and the Short Form-6D [SF-6D], there has been little comparative research. Therefore, we examined the reliability and responsiveness of these measures and the Rheumatoid Arthritis Quality of Life (RAQoL) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) in a sample of RA patients. Major findings: Test–retest reliability was acceptable for all of the instruments with the exception of the EQ-5D. Using two external criteria to define change (a patient transition question and categories of the patient global assessment of disease activity VAS), the RAQoL was the most responsive of the instruments. For the indirect utility instruments, the HUI3 and the SF-6D were the most responsive for measuring positive change. On average, for patients whose RA improved, the absolute change was highest for the HUI3. Conclusions: The HUI3 and the SF-6D appear to be the most responsive of the preference-based instruments in RA. However, differences in the magnitude of the absolute change scores have important implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.     

The validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments: the ability to discriminate asthma control status

Objective A goal of asthma management is to improve the patient’s health-related quality of life (HRQL). However, it is unclear whether HRQL instruments can discriminate across asthma control measures. The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity of generic and condition-specific preference-based instruments, in terms of their ability to distinguish asthma control. Methods Asthma patients (n = 157) completed three generic preference-based instruments: the Health Utility Index Mark 3 (HUI-3), the EuroQol (EQ-5D), and the Short Form 6D (SF-6D) and two condition-specific questionnaires: the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)) and the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ). The AQLQ(S) scores were converted into the condition-specific preference-based scores: the Asthma Quality of Life Utility Index (AQL-5D). Results The preference-based instruments were generally able to discriminate across control measures, such as ACQ scores and magnitude of asthma medication, but were not able to discriminate for self-reported control and severity levels. These instruments also correlated with most control measures (r = 0.32–0.37). Significant relationships between AQL-5D scores and all control variables were observed. Conclusions Overall, the AQL-5D discriminated across all levels of asthma control. The HUI-3, the EQ-5D, and the SF-6D differentiated between the highest and lowest levels of control but could not discriminate between the moderate levels.     

Comparing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) with the Short Form-36 Preference-Based SF-6D in Chronic Kidney Disease

Objective:  Assess within-subject agreement and compare discriminative abilities between the SF-6D and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
Methods:  The HUI3 and Short Form-36 were self-completed by 185 CKD patients enrolled in a prospective study of incident patients with stage 4 and 5 CKD.
Results:  The mean preference-based score for the SF-6D was 0.67 ± 0.13 compared to 0.58 ± 0.26 for the HUI3 ( P  < 0.01). There was a strong association between SF-6D and HUI3 scores (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.55, 95% CI 0.43–0.65) and moderate agreement with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.44. The HUI3 was better able to capture more severe burden of illness with fewer floor effects. The SF-6D was better at capturing differences among patients at the top range of the scale with fewer ceiling effects. Both the HUI3 and SF-6D were able to discriminate between patient groups differing in disease severity defined as predialysis versus dialysis dependent and depressive symptoms using a Beck Depression Inventory II score of ≥14 as the cutoff. The HUI3 was better able to discriminate greater depressive symptoms.
Conclusion:  The SF-6D and the HUI3 generate different preference-based scores for patients with CKD and any comparison between their scores should be made with caution. The HUI3 appears more suitable for measuring the health of populations with greater disability such as patients with CKD. It remains to be determined whether these differences will remain when one compares within-instrument differences in preference scores over time.     

Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D

Background: The SF-6D and EQ-5D are both preference-based measures of health. Empirical work is required to determine what the smallest change is in utility scores that can be regarded as important and whether this change in utility value is constant across measures and conditions. Objectives: To use distribution and anchor-based methods to determine and compare the minimally important difference (MID) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D for various datasets. Methods: The SF-6D is scored on a 0.29–1.00 scale and the EQ-5D on a −0.59–1.00 scale, with a score of 1.00 on both, indicating ‘full health’. Patients were followed for a period of time, then asked, using question 2 of the SF-36 as our anchor, if their general health is much better (5), somewhat better (4), stayed the same (3), somewhat worse (2) or much worse (1) compared to the last time they were assessed. We considered patients whose global rating score was 4 or 2 as having experienced some change equivalent to the MID. This paper describes and compares the MID and standardised response mean (SRM) for the SF-6D and EQ-5D from eight longitudinal studies in 11 patient groups that used both instruments. Results: From the 11 reviewed studies, the MID for the SF-6D ranged from 0.011 to 0.097, mean 0.041. The corresponding SRMs ranged from 0.12 to 0.87, mean 0.39 and were mainly in the ‘small to moderate’ range using Cohen’s criteria, supporting the MID results. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was 0.074 (range −0.011–0.140) and the SRMs ranged from −0.05 to 0.43, mean 0.24. The mean MID for the EQ-5D was almost double that of the mean MID for the SF-6D. Conclusions: There is evidence that the MID for these two utility measures are not equal and differ in absolute values. The EQ-5D scale has approximately twice the range of the SF-6D scale. Therefore, the estimates of the MID for each scale appear to be proportionally equivalent in the context of the range of utility scores for each scale. Further empirical work is required to see whether or not this holds true for other utility measures, patient groups and populations.     

Choosing between measures: comparison of EQ-5D,HUI2 and HUI3 in persons with hearing complaints

Objectives To generate insight into the differences between utility measures EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index Mark II (HUI2) and Mark III (HUI3) and their impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for hearing aid fitting Methods Persons with hearing complaints completed EQ-5D, HUI2 and HUI3 at baseline and, when applicable, after hearing aid fitting. Practicality, construct validity, agreement, responsiveness and impact on the ICER were examined. Results All measures had high completion rates. HUI3 was capable of discriminating between clinically distinctive groups. Utility scores (n = 315) for EQ-5D UK and Dutch tariff (0.83; 0.86), HUI2 (0.77) and HUI3 (0.61) were significantly different, agreement was low to moderate. Change after hearing aid fitting (n = 70) for HUI2 (0.07) and HUI3 (0.12) was statistically significant, unlike the EQ-5D UK (0.01) and Dutch (0.00) tariff. ICERs varied from €647,209/QALY for the EQ-5D Dutch tariff to €15,811/QALY for HUI3. Conclusion Utility scores, utility gain and ICERs heavily depend on the measure that is used to elicit them. This study indicates HUI3 as the instrument of first choice when measuring utility in a population with hearing complaints, but emphasizes the importance of a clear notion of what constitutes utility with regard to economic analyses.     

An assessment of validity and responsiveness of generic measures of health-related quality of life in hearing impairment

Purpose

This review examines psychometric performance of three widely used generic preference-based measures, that is, EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), Health Utility Index 3 (HUI3) and Short-form 6 dimensions (SF-6D) in patients with hearing impairments.

Methods

A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies of patients with hearing impairments where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted and analysed to assess the reliability, validity (known group differences and convergent validity) and responsiveness of the measures across hearing impairments.

Results

Fourteen studies (18 papers) were included in the review. HUI3 was the most commonly used utility measures in hearing impairment. In all six studies, the HUI3 detected difference between groups defined by the severity of impairment, and four out of five studies detected statistically significant changes as a result of intervention. The only study available suggested that EQ-5D only had weak ability to discriminate difference between severity groups, and in four out of five studies, EQ-5D failed to detected changes. Only one study involved the SF-6D; thus, the information is too limited to conclude on its performance. Also evidence for the reliability of these measures was not found.

Conclusion

Overall, the validity and responsiveness of the HUI3 in hearing impairment was good. The responsiveness of EQ-5D was relatively poor and weak validity was suggested by limited evidence. The evidence on SF-6D was too limited to make any judgment. More head-to-head comparisons of these and other preference measures of health are required.     

Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke

Objective: To compare five preference-based generic measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in terms of change scores, correlations among change scores, responsiveness, and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Design: Observational longitudinal cohort study where clinical measures and self-assessed HRQOL measures were administered to stroke patients at baseline and at 6 months. Patients were categorized as ‘stable’, ‘some improvement’ and ‘large improvement’ using the Barthel Index, Modified Rankin Scale (MRS), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). For each group, paired t -tests and variants of effect size were used to compare the responsiveness of preference-based HRQOL summary scores, including the EQ-5D VAS and index-based score, SF-6D, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) overall utility scores. Results: Ninety-eight of 124 (79%) patients completed the 6-month follow-up. Change scores of the EQ-Index, HUI2, and HUI3 were strongly correlated with changes in the Barthel Index and MRS, while the EQ-5D VAS had higher correlation with CES-D change scores than the other measures. The SF-6D, HUI3, and EQ-Index were generally more responsive than the HUI2 and EQ-5D Visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). QALY estimates based on the EQ-5D index and HUI3 were twice as large as estimates based on the SF-6D and HUI2. Conclusions : The results of this study may assist in informing the selection of a preference-based generic HRQOL measure, although choice will also depend on study goals and context. We would caution against the generalization of the study results on responsiveness to conditions when more subtle change is expected.     

Translation and cultural adaptation of Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3) with application to survivors of childhood cancer in Brazil

Introduction: There are few publications reporting health-related quality of life (HRQL) in developing nations. Most instruments measuring HRQL have been developed in English-speaking countries. These instruments need to be culturally adapted for use in non-English-speaking countries. The HUI2 and HUI3 are generic, preference-based systems for describing health status and HRQL. Developed in Canada, the systems have been translated into more than a dozen languages and used worldwide in hundreds of studies of clinical and general populations. Methods: The Brazilian–Portuguese translation of the HUI systems was supervised by senior HUInc staff having experience with both the HUI systems and translations. The process included two independent forward translations of the multi-attribute health status classification systems and related questionnaires, consensus between translators on a forward translation, back-translation by two independent translators of the forward translation, and review of the back-translations by original developers of the HUI. The final questionnaires were tested by surveying a sample of convenience of 50 patients recruited at the Centro de Tratamento e Pesquisa–Hospital do Câncer in São Paulo, Brazil. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled in the study. No assessor, patient or nurse or physician, reported problems answering the HUI questionnaires. No significant differences were found in mean overall HUI2 or HUI3 utility scores among types of assessors. Variability in scores are similar to those from other studies in Latin America and Canada. Conclusion: Test results provide preliminary evidence that the Brazilian–Portuguese translation is acceptable, understandable, reliable and valid for assessing health-status and HRQL among survivors of cancer in childhood in Brazil.     

Impact of disease progression on health status, quality of life and costs in rheumatoid arthritis in Hungary

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive polyarthritis leading to substantial disability. Standardised data on consequences of disease progression are needed for clinical assessments and also for cost-effectiveness models. AIM: To analyse the impact of disease progression on health status, disease specific quality of life and costs in Hungary. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was performed between April and August, 2004, involving consecutive RA patients of 6 hospital based rheumatology outpatient centres. Self-completed questionnaires were used to assess functional (HAQ) and health status (EQ-5D), quality of life (RAQoL). Disease activity (DAS) and costs were also surveyed, statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: 255 patients were involved [mean age 55.5 +/- 12.3 years; disease duration 9.0 +/- 9.3 years; HAQ 1.38 +/- 0.76; EQ-5D 0.46 +/- 0.33; RAQoL 16.2 +/- 8.1; DAS 5.09 +/- 1.42; costs 1,043,163 (+/- 844,750) HUF/patient/year, conversion 1 Euro = 250 HUF]. Correlation was significant between the parameters ( p < 0.01): EQ-5D index = 1.014 - 0.25 x HAQ-0.041 x DAS; HAQ = 0.314 + 0.065 x RAQoL. Analysis by disease severity levels (HAQ groups 0.5 difference) revealed that health status worsens (mean EQ-5D: 0.784; 0.576; 0.504; 0.367; 0.211; 0.022) and costs increase (mean 628,280; 888,187; 953,759; 1,291,218; 1,346,112; 1,371,674 HUF/patient/year) with disease progression. Minimally important worsening of functional ability (0.25 HAQ increase) corresponds to -0.0705 EQ-5D and +1.884 RAQoL change. Lower health status difference (EQ-5D -0.05725) was calculated in patients with lower disease activity (DAS < 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between disease progression, health status, quality of life and costs does not differ significantly from international results. The amount of costs is much lower in all disease severity levels than in developed European countries. Our study serves baseline data for health economic analysis in RA in Hungary.     

Validation and Comparison of EuroQol and Short Form 6D in Chronic Prostatitis Patients

ObjectiveGeneric, preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments is increasingly used in health-care decision-making process. However, to our knowledge, no such HRQoL instrument has been validated or used in chronic prostatitis. We therefore aimed to assess and compare the psychometric properties of EuroQol (EQ-5D) and Short Form 6D (SF-6D) among chronic prostatitis patients in China.MethodsConsenting patients were interviewed using EQ-5D and SF-6D. Convergent and discriminative construct validities were examined with five and two a priori hypotheses, respectively. Sensitivity was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and relative efficiency (RE) statistics. Agreement between instruments was assessed with intra-class correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plot, while factors affecting utility difference were explored with multiple liner regression models.ResultsIn 268 subjects, mean (SD) EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores were comparable at 0.73 (0.15) and 0.75 (0.10), respectively. Five of the seven hypotheses for construct validity were fulfilled in both instruments. The areas under ROC of them all exceeded 0.5 (P < 0.001). SF-6D had 9.7–19.9% higher efficiency than EQ-5D at detecting the difference in chronic prostatitis symptom severity. Despite no significant difference in utility scores between two instruments, lack of agreement was observed with low intraclass correlation coefficient (0.218–0.630) and Bland–Altman plot analysis. Chronic prostatitis symptom severity significantly (P < 0.05) influenced differences in utility scores between EQ-5D and SF-6D.ConclusionsBoth EQ-5D and SF-6D are demonstrated to be valid and sensitive HRQoL measures in Chinese chronic prostatitis patients, with SF-6D showing better HRQoL dimension coverage, greater sensitivity, lower ceiling effect, and more rational distribution. Further research is needed to determine longitudinal response and reliability.     

Areas of decrement in health-related quality of life (HRQL): Comparing the SF-12, EQ-5D,and HUI 3

Background: Different measures of health status and health-related quality of life (HRQL) have been advocated for different purposes at the clinical and population level. Relatively little is known about how these measures function in relationship to one another. We examined the relationship between the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), EQ-5D, and Health Utilities Index (HUI) Mark 3 for overall scores and in analogous domains of health. A convenience sample was obtained through surveying patients at an inner-city community health center. Measurements and main results: The sample was comprised primarily of low-income racial/ethnic minorities; 393 patients were approached and 301 patients (77%) participated. The three measures had correlations between overall scores that ranged from 0.41 to 0.69 and correlations between similar domains from different measures that ranged from 0.42 to 0.59. For the HUI 3, any impairment most frequently was noted with pain, vision, cognition, and emotion. For the EQ-5D, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression were reported as impaired most often. Compared to published population scores, participants reported impairments with increased frequency and at a greater level. Conclusions: Participants demonstrated consistency with responses to similar types of items and correlations between related aspects of health were moderate to strong. Domains of health most often reported as impaired resembled those noted in national surveys. Despite differences in the structure of the measures, all three instruments capture information about decrements in broadly analogous domains of health.     

Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision

Utility scores were estimated for 609 hearing-impaired adults who completed EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and SF-6D survey instruments both before and after being provided with a hearing aid. Pre-intervention, the mean utility scores for EQ-5D (0.80) and SF-6D (0.78) were significantly higher than the mean HUI3 utility score (0.58). Post-intervention, the mean improvement in the HUI3 (0.06 change) was significantly higher than the mean improvement according to the EQ-5D (0.01 change) or SF-6D (0.01 change). The estimated cost effectiveness of hearing-aid provision is therefore likely to be dependent on which instrument is used to measure utility.     

Assessing Differences in Utility Scores: A Comparison of Four Widely Used Preference-Based Instruments

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the differences in utility scores (dUTY) among four commonly used preference-based Health-Related Quality of Life instruments, to evaluate the potential impact of these differences on cost-utility analyses (CUA), and to determine if sociodemographic/clinical factors influenced the magnitude of these differences. METHODS: Consenting adult Chinese, Malay and Indian subjects in Singapore were interviewed using Singapore English, Chinese, Malay or Tamil versions of the EQ-5D, Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), and SF-6D. Agreement between instruments was assessed using Bland-Altman (BA) plots. Changes in incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) from dUTY were investigated using eight hypothetical decision trees. The influence of sociodemographic/clinical factors on dUTY between instrument pairs was studied using multiple linear regression (MLR) models for English-speaking subjects (circumventing structural zero issues). RESULTS: In 667 subjects (median age 48 years, 59% female), median utility scores ranged from 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80, 0.85) for the EQ-5D to 0.89 (95% CI 0.88, 0.89) for the SF-6D. BA plots: Mean differences (95% CI) exceeded the clinically important difference (CID) of 0.04 for four of six pairwise comparisons, with the exception of the HUI2/EQ-5D (0.03, CI: 0.02, 0.04) and SF-6D/HUI2 (0.02, CI: 0.006, 0.02). Decision trees: The ICER ranged from $94,661/QALY (quality-adjusted life-year; 6.3% difference from base case) to 100,693 dollars/QALY (0.3% difference from base case). MLR: Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and Family Functioning Measures scores significantly (P-value < 0.05) influenced dUTY for several instrument pairs. CONCLUSION: Although CIDs in utility measurements were present for different preference-based instruments, the impact of these differences on CUA appeared relatively minor. Chronic medical conditions, marital status, and family functioning influenced the magnitude of these differences.     

Evidence on the longitudinal construct validity of major generic and utility measures of health-related quality of life in teens with depression

Purpose

To examine the longitudinal construct validity in the assessment of changes in depressive symptoms of widely used utility and generic HRQL instruments in teens.

Methods

392 teens enrolled in the study and completed HRQL and diagnostic measures as part of the baseline interview. HRQL measures included EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L), Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), Quality of Well-Being Scale (QWB), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PEDS-QL), RAND-36 (SF-6D), and Quality of Life in Depression Scale (QLDS). Youth completed follow-up interviews 12 weeks after baseline. Sixteen youth (4.1%) were lost to follow-up. We examined correlations between changes in HRQL instruments and the Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) and assessed clinically meaningful change in multi-attribute utility HRQL measures using mean change (MC) and standardized response mean (SRM) among youth showing at least moderate (20%) improvement in depression symptomology.

Results

Spearman’s correlation coefficients demonstrated moderate correlation between changes in CDRS-R and the HUI2 (r?=?0.38), HUI3 (r?=?0.42), EQ-5D-3L (r?=?0.36), SF-6D (r?=?0.39), and PEDS-QL (r?=?0.39) and strong correlation between changes in CDRS-R and QWB (r?=?0.52) and QLDS (r?=???0.71). Effect size results are also reported. Among multi-attribute utility measures, all showed clinically meaningful improvements in the sample of youth with depression improvement (HUI2, MC?=?0.20, SRM?=?0.97; HUI3, MC?=?0.32, SRM?=?1.17; EQ-5D-3L, MC?=?0.08, SRM?=?0.51; QWB, MC?=?0.11, SRM?=?0.86; and SF-6D, MC?=?0.12, SRM?=?1.02).

Conclusions

Findings support the longitudinal construct validity of included HRQL instruments for the assessment of change in depression outcomes in teens. Results of this study can help inform researchers about viable instruments to include in economic evaluations for this population.

     

A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer's disease.

PURPOSE: The Health Utilities Index (HUI) is a generic, multiattribute, preference-based health-status classification system. The HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) differs from the earlier HUI2 by modifying attributes and allowing more flexibility for capturing high levels of impairment. The authors compared HUI2 and HUI3 scores of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and caregivers, and contrasted results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of new drugs for AD using the two systems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 679 AD patient/caregiver pairs, stratified by patient's disease stage (questionable/mild/moderate/severe/profound/terminal) and setting (community/assisted living/nursing home), caregivers completed the combined HUI2/HUI3 questionnaire as proxy respondents for patients and for themselves. RESULTS: Mean (SD) global utility scores for patients were lower on the HUI3 (0.22[0.26]) than on the HUI2 (0.53 [0.21]). Patient HUI3 utility scores ranged from 0.47(0.24) for questionable AD to -0.23 (0.08) for terminal AD, compared with a range of 0.73 (0.15) to 0.14 (0.07) for the HUI2. Among the 203 patients in the severe, profound, and terminal stages, 96 (48%) had negative global HUI3 utility scores, while none had a negative HUI2 score. The utility scores for caregivers were similar on the HUI3 (0.87 [0.14]) and HUI2 (0.87 [0.11]). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new medication to treat AD showed somewhat more favorable results using the HUI3. CONCLUSIONS: The HUI2 and HUI3 discriminate well across AD stages. Compared with the HUI2, the HUI3 yields lower global utility scores for patients with AD, and more scores for states judged worse than dead. The HUI3 may yield substantially different results from the HUI2, particularly for persons who have serious cognitive impairments such as AD.     

Comparison of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D in patients treated for intermittent claudication

The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) and the EuroQol EQ-5D (EQ-5D) were compared to each other and to other quality-of-life (QoL) measures in patients treated for intermittent claudication. A total of 88 patients with intermittent claudication completed the HUI3, EQ-5D, RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0, time tradeoff, standard gamble, and rating scale before revascularization and at follow-up at 1 month, 3 months, and 1 year. The effect of treatment on the HUI3 and EQ-5D dimensions and the overall scores, calculated using published formulas based on societal preferences, were compared. After 1 month of treatment, the majority of patients showed improvement on the HUI3 dimensions ambulation and pain and on the EQ-5D dimensions mobility, usual activities, and pain/discomfort. The mean HUI3 score was significantly higher than the mean EQ-5D score (0.66 and 0.57, respectively, p < 0.01) before treatment. After treatment, however, they were not significantly different from each other (e.g., 12 months after treatment: 0.77 and 0.75, respectively (p > 0.05). After 1 month, the scores did not change significantly over time (p > 0.05). The intraclass correlation coefficient between changes over time in the HUI3 and EQ-5D scores was 0.30, with other health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures the correlations for HUI3 and EQ-5D were very similar. In conclusion, both the HUI3 and EQ-5D demonstrated an effect of treatment in patients with intermittent claudication; in addition, they showed similar relationships with other (HRQoL) measures. To demonstrate the effect of revascularization in patients with intermittent claudication, however, clinicians and researchers should be aware of the differences in the mean HUI3 and EQ-5D scores. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.