Relationship Between the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life (WISQOL) and Preference-Based/Health Utility Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in Kidney Stone Patients



      To determine preference-based (utility) assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in kidney stone patients, and evaluate the association between these and disease specific, psychometric health status-based HRQoL scores (obtained via the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life [WISQOL]).


      One hundred four adults with urolithiasis, as well as 78 young healthy adults without history of urolithiasis (controls) were consecutively enrolled, meeting the predetermined recruitment goal. Each participant completed the SF-36 v2 (from which SF-6D utility is calculated) and EQ-5D questionnaires, while urolithiasis patients additionally completed the WISQOL. Relationship between health utility and WISQOL scores was evaluated using Pearson's test and multivariable linear regression analysis (MVA). Construct validity of the utilities for urolithiasis was assessed by comparing utilities for patients vs controls, and for symptomatic vs asymptomatic patients.


      Mean (SD) WISQOL standard score, SF-6D, and EQ-5D utilities in stone patients respectively were 63 (29.1), 0.68 (0.16), and 0.83 (0.17). SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities significantly correlated with WISQOL standard score (Pearson's r = 0.87 and 0.58, respectively; each P <.0001). On MVA, WISQOL standard score was a significant predictor of SF-6D and EQ-5D utilities, explaining 72.1% and 33.9% of the respective variances in the utilities. Median SF-6D and EQ-5D utility were significantly lower in patients vs controls (each P ≤.0009), and in symptomatic vs asymptomatic patients (each P ≤ .0002).


      SF-6D, more so than EQ-5D utilities in urolithiasis patients are strongly associated with disease-specific WISQOL scores, suggesting they are optimal for preference-based HRQoL assessment in this population. Construct validity of the utilities in stone disease was demonstrated.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Curhan GC.
        Epidemiology of stone disease.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2007; 34: 287-293
        • Scales Jr., CD
        • Smith AC
        • Hanley JM
        • Saigal CS
        Urologic diseases in America. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States.
        Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 160-165
        • Canvasser NE
        • Alken P
        • Lipkin M
        • et al.
        The economics of stone disease.
        World J Urol. 2017; 35: 1321-1329
        • New F
        • Somani BK.
        A complete world literature review of Quality of Life (QOL) in patients with Kidney Stone Disease (KSD).
        Curr Urol Rep. 2016; 17: 88
        • Penniston KL
        • Antonelli JA
        • Viprakasit DP
        • et al.
        Validation and reliability of the Wisconsin stone quality of life questionnaire.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 1280-1288
        • Penniston KL
        • Nakada SY.
        Development of an instrument to assess the health related quality of life of kidney stone formers.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 921-930
        • Froberg DG
        • Kane RL.
        Methodology for measuring health-state preferences–I: measurement strategies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 345-354
        • Revicki DA
        Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: Ms274-Ms282
        • Whitehead SJ
        • Ali S.
        Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities.
        Br Med Bull. 2010; 96: 5-21
        • Kuo RL
        • Aslan P
        • Abrahamse PH
        • Matchar DB
        • Preminger GM
        Incorporation of patient preferences in the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi: a decision analytical view.
        J Urol. 1999; 162: 1913-1918
        • Fann CY
        • Huang PC
        • Yen AM
        • Chen HH
        Patient utility measurement for managing ureteral stones: a modified standard gamble approach.
        Value Health Reg Issues. 2012; 1: 87-92
        • Olweny E KS
        • Eisner B
        • Carroll P
        • Stoller M
        Utility-based assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with kidney stones.
        J Urol. 2010; 184: e103
        • Eryildirim B
        • Sahin C
        • Tuncer M
        • et al.
        Effect of medical expulsive therapy on the health-related quality of life of patients with ureteral stones: a critical evaluation.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2015; 47: 1271-1275
        • Wolf Jr., JS
        • Carroll PR
        • Stoller ML
        Cost-effectiveness v patient preference in the choice of treatment for distal ureteral calculi: a literature-based decision analysis.
        J Endourol. 1995; 9: 243-248
        • Brazier JE
        • Yang Y
        • Tsuchiya A
        • Rowen DL
        A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures.
        Eur J Health Econ. 2010; 11: 215-225
      1. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin school of medicine and public health. WISQOL non-profit use. Accessed June 1, 2017.

      2. EuroQol. EQ-5D Registration Form. Accessed June 1, 2017.

        • Szende A
        • Janssen B
        • Cabases J
        Self-Reported Population Health: an International Perspective Based on EQ-5D.
        Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands2014
        • Brazier J
        • Roberts J
        • Deverill M
        The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.
        J Health Econ. 2002; 21: 271-292
        • Craig BM
        • Pickard AS
        • Stolk E
        • Brazier JE
        US valuation of the SF-6D.
        Med Decis Making. 2013; 33: 793-803
        • Judd CM
        • McClelland GH
        • Ryan CS
        Data Analysis: a Model Comparison Approach.
        2nd ed. Routledge, New York, NY2008
        • Edejer T
        • Baltussen R
        • Adam T
        • et al.
        Making Choices in Health: WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
        • Tengs TO
        • Wallace A.
        One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates.
        Med Care. 2000; 38: 583-637
        • Walters SJ
        • Brazier JE.
        Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 1523-1532
        • Huang IC
        • Frangakis C
        • Atkinson MJ
        • et al.
        Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease.
        Health Serv Res. 2008; 43: 327-339
        • Sullivan PW
        • Lawrence WF
        • Ghushchyan V
        A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States.
        Med Care. 2005; 43: 736-749
        • Buxton MJ
        • Lacey LA
        • Feagan BG
        • Niecko T
        • Miller DW
        • Townsend RJ
        Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn's Disease Activity Index in Crohn's disease and measures of utility.
        Value Health. 2007; 10: 214-220
        • Kontodimopoulos N
        • Aletras VH
        • Paliouras D
        • Niakas D
        Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments.
        Value Health. 2009; 12: 1151-1157