Literature DB >> 17884597

The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off.

Milo A Puhan1, Holger J Schünemann, Eric Wong, Lauren Griffith, Gordon H Guyatt.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
OBJECTIVE: There is little evidence for the relative cross-sectional validity of the standard gamble (SG) and time trade-off (TTO). We compared these preference-based instruments in patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS).
METHODS: Patients rated their own health on the SG and TTO and completed the disease-specific IBS questionnaire, the Brief Pain Inventory, the SF-36, the Sickness Impact Profile, and a global rating of disease severity.
RESULTS: Mean scores of the 96 enrolled patients (mean age 39.5 years, 84.4% women) were 0.84 (standard deviation 0.16) for the SG and 0.76 (0.22) for the TTO. The correlation of the SG with the TTO was 0.36. For the SG, correlation coefficients with the IBS questionnaire domain scores ranged from 0.36 to 0.47, whereas those of the TTO were substantially lower (0.15-0.42). The SG also had higher correlations than the TTO with generic questionnaires (0.18-0.34 versus 0.13-0.26), Brief Pain Inventory (0.27 versus 0.11), global rating of disease severity (0.22 versus 0.10) as well as with SF-36-derived patient preferences (0.31-0.43 versus 0.27-0.31).
CONCLUSIONS: The higher correlations of the SG with validation measures indicate that the SG better reflects health-related quality of life and patient preferences compared to the TTO.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17884597     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  4 in total

1.  Preoperative risk assessment for bleeding and thromboembolism.

Authors:  Donald M Arnold; Julia Anderson; Clive Kearon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-09-03

2.  Maximal endurable time states and the standard gamble: more preference reversals.

Authors:  P F M Stalmeier; A L Verheijen
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2012-12-09

3.  Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  Robert Hutchins; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Anthony J Viera
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-05-11       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Utility value estimates in cardiovascular disease and the effect of changing elicitation methods: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Marissa Blieden Betts; Pratik Rane; Evelien Bergrath; Madhura Chitnis; Mohit Kumar Bhutani; Claudia Gulea; Yi Qian; Guillermo Villa
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2020-07-27       Impact factor: 3.186

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.