Literature DB >> 14673814

An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients.

Louise Longworth1, Stirling Bryan.   

Abstract

There remains disagreement about the preferred utility-based measure of health-related quality of life for use in constructing quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The recent development of a new measure, the SF-6D, has highlighted this issue. The SF-6D and EuroQol EQ-5D measure health-related utilities on a scale where 0 represents death and 1 represents full health, and both have utility scores generated from random samples of the general UK population. This study explored whether, in a large sample of liver transplant patients, the two instruments provide similar results. The empirical data highlight important variation in the results generated from the use of the two instruments. The data are consistent with a view that the SF-6D does not describe health states at the lower end of the utility scale but is more sensitive than EQ-5D in detecting small changes towards the top of the scale. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14673814     DOI: 10.1002/hec.787

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Econ        ISSN: 1057-9230            Impact factor:   3.046


  71 in total

Review 1.  Utility scores for different health states related to depression: individual participant data analysis.

Authors:  Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Johanna M van Dongen; Birre van Esveld; Dorcas Magai; Annemieke van Straten; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg; Klaas M Huijbregts; Harm van Marwijk; Heleen Riper; Maurits W van Tulder
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The NICE reference case requirement: implications for drug manufacturers and health systems.

Authors:  Paul C Langley
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  Can EQ-5D and 15D be used interchangeably in economic evaluations? Assessing quality of life in post-stroke patients.

Authors:  Lene Lunde
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-06-08

4.  Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Knut Stavem; Stig S Frøland; Kjell B Hellum
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  How do the EQ-5D, SF-6D and the well-being rating scale compare in patients with ankylosing spondylitis?

Authors:  Annelies Boonen; Désirée van der Heijde; Robert Landewé; Astrid van Tubergen; Herman Mielants; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 19.103

6.  Measuring preferences for cost-utility analysis: how choice of method may influence decision-making.

Authors:  Christine M McDonough; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Retrospective baseline measurement of self-reported health status and health-related quality of life versus population norms in the evaluation of post-injury losses.

Authors:  W L Watson; J Ozanne-Smith; J Richardson
Journal:  Inj Prev       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.399

8.  Addition of adult-to-adult living donation to liver transplant programs improves survival but at an increased cost.

Authors:  Patrick G Northup; Michael M Abecassis; Michael J Englesbe; Jean C Emond; Vanessa D Lee; George J Stukenborg; Lan Tong; Carl L Berg
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.799

9.  Valuing benefits to inform a clinical trial in pharmacy : do differences in utility measures at baseline affect the effectiveness of the intervention?

Authors:  Michela Tinelli; Mandy Ryan; Christine Bond; Anthony Scott
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.981

10.  Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population.

Authors:  Carmen Selva-Sevilla; Paula Ferrara; Manuel Gerónimo-Pardo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2020-02-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.