ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Convergent validity, reliability and responsiveness of the AP-7D and EQ-5D-5L based on the survey for the general people in five countries: a new cultural-specific preference-based measure developed in east and southeast asia.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe AP-7D is a preference-based measure that was recently developed for use in East and Southeast Asia. This study investigated the reliability and convergent validity of the new instrument.
methodsFor this, surveys were conducted in Japan, Korea, China, Thailand, and Singapore. In each country, 500 respondents were selected using quota sampling and were stratified by sex and age. We conducted a face-to-face survey in Japan and a web-based survey in the remaining countries at two time points. The AP-7D and the EQ-5D-5L were collected from all countries, and the SF-6D was only collected in Japan. The instruments' reliabilities were confirmed by comparing the responses using self-report test-retest methods. For convergent validity, we compared responses provided to the AP-7D with those provided to the EQ-5D-5L and the SF-6D based on predetermined hypotheses.
resultsThe percentage of agreement between the two surveys (in separate categories) was 73.9% (pain/discomfort), 71.2% (mental health), 68.6% (energy), 89.6% (mobility), 82.1% (work/school), 84.3% (social relations), and 86.4% (burden to others) in the five countries. These values demonstrate equivalent performance to those of the EQ-5D-5L. The kappa coefficients for the AP-7D items were similar to those for the EQ-5D-5L. In the correlation matrix between the AP-7D and EQ-5D-5L, correlation exceeded 0.5 in the following items: 0.69 between "mental health" (AP-7D) and "anxiety/depression" (EQ-5D-5L), 0.54 for "pain/discomfort" in both, 0.51 between "energy" (AP-7D) and "anxiety/depression" (EQ-5D-5L), and 0.50 for "mobility" in both.
conclusionsThe results of this survey showed the good test-retest reliability and convergent validity of the AP-7D. The basic psychometric properties of the new instrument were confirmed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.