Evidence mapPaperPMID 40347403Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2025

The Use of EQ-5D in the Middle East and North Africa Region: A Systematic Literature Review.

Abeer Al Rabayah, Sibylle Puntscher, Fatima Al Sayah, Razan Sawalha, Elly Stolk, Judit Simon, Michael Drummond, Uwe Siebert

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Abeer Al RabayahInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL-University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria. Abeer-Ahmad-Hamdan.Al-Rabayah@umit-tirol.at.ORCID 0000-0003-2952-9103
Sibylle PuntscherInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL-University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Fatima Al SayahAlberta PROMs & EQ-5D Research & Support Unit (APERSU), School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Razan SawalhaPharmacy Department, Center for Drug Policy and Technology Assessment, King Hussein Cancer Center, Amman, Jordan.
Elly StolkEuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Judit SimonDepartment of Health Economics, Center for Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Michael DrummondCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Uwe SiebertInstitute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, Department of Public Health, Health Services Research, and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT TIROL-University for Health Sciences and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe EQ-5D is the most commonly used preference-based measure of health-related quality of life. There is limited evidence about the use of the EQ-5D in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. This study aimed to systematically identify, review, summarize, and synthesize the published literature on using the EQ-5D in this region.

methodsA systematic literature review was conducted, according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, using PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and covering the period up to 30 August 2024. Studies using any version of the EQ-5D in adults or youth in the MENA region were included. Pilot studies, guidelines, study protocols, and reviews were excluded. Key study characteristics and outcomes assessed included study design, clinical area, population, type of EQ-5D data reported, reference value set used, and mode of administration. Title/abstract screening was conducted independently by two reviewers to assess eligibility for inclusion. Two researchers completed full-text screening and extracted data using a standardized form. Disagreements were referred to a third reviewer if not resolved by discussion. Results were summarized in systematic evidence tables.

resultsAfter removing duplicates, 18,034 references were considered for title/abstract screening. In total, 184 studies were included with a total sample size of 128,164 subjects. Of the included single-country studies, 42% were reported in Iran, 20% in Saudi Arabia, and 11% in Jordan. Patient populations were investigated in 86% of the studies, 23% of which targeted endocrine diseases. Study design was observational in 57% and experimental in 14% of the studies. Only 10% of the included studies applied the EQ-5D in an economic evaluation. The EQ-5D-3L version was used in 40% of the studies. However, the trend is towards a greater use of the 5L version in more recent years. Twenty percent of the studies reported EQ-5D results using the index score, frequencies of severity levels per dimension, and visual analog scale scores. EQ-5D modes of administration and funding sources were not reported in 16% and 20% of the studies, respectively.

conclusionThere is an increased use of the EQ-5D in the MENA region, especially since 2020. In the region, the use of the EQ-5D is more prevalent in clinical studies than in economic evaluation studies. The reporting heterogeneity indicates the need for guidance in reporting EQ-5D study results in this region.

Indexed as

Health StatusQuality of LifeAfrica, NorthernHumansMiddle EastSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID40347403
PMCPMC12255660

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.