OBJECTIVES : PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L are widely-used preference-weighted patient-reported outcomes in the health utility field, each with large and growing impact on Health Technology Assessment worldwide. The instruments have different features in terms of domains of health related quality of life and preference elicitation, and so it is important to assess the impact of choosing either instrument for the decision-making process. This study presents a comparison of the instruments, synthesising existing evidence, and comparing the characteristics of the value sets available for EQ-5D-5L and PROPr (the US utilities for the PROMIS-29).

METHODS : First, a literature review was conducted in PubMed and Web of Science to identify research studies investigating the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L. Then, we investigated the differences in terms of the descriptive system for PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L and how such differences are reflected in utility scores by assessing the characteristics of the value sets. We used the PROPr utilities for PROMIS-29 and three value sets for EQ-5D-5L (Australian, UK and US).

RESULTS : A total of 59 unique abstracts were identified from the literature search. However, only one study examined the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L (using EQ-5D-3L crosswalk value set). The comparison between the value sets shows that differences exist in overall range, the shape of the distribution of possible values, the proportions of health states valued better and worse than dead, and values between adjacent states in the respective descriptive systems.

CONCLUSIONS : There is a dearth of literature examining the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L, and important differences exist between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D-5L value sets. Future work is needed to assess the differences between the two instruments using data from both the general population and patient populations.