English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study systematically reviews the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5 L in studies of T2DM. Relevant articles were retrieved by searching four databases, namely, the Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Library up to November 2020 with English language. All stages of the review conducted by two authors and disagreements were solved by consultation with a third reviewer. Of the 1614 identified studies, 46 were remained for review. The EQ-5D-5 L mean scores ranged from 0.314 (0.4) (n = 141) for diabetic patients undergoing hemodialysis to 0.971 (0.082) (n = 56) for diabetic patient without retinopathy. Mean EQ-5D-5 L scores in men (0.847) were higher those in women (0.747). Construct validity and reliability was confirmed in the studies that reported the properties of the EQ-5D-5 L, and responsiveness reported in a study that was good. There were ceiling effects in seven studies. The overall utility value was higher in Japan (0.86, 95% CI: 0.80–0.92,  p  = 0.0001) thanCanada (0.79, 95% CI: 0.78–0.80,  p  = 0.81), and the United Kingdom (0.72, 95% CI: 0.64–0.79,  p  = 0.0001). Findings demonstrated validity, reliability of the EQ-5D-5 L in T2DM and the existence of ceiling effects. However, the assessment of responsiveness and sensitivity needs further observations.

Assessment of the properties of the EQ-5D-5L in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis