Literature DB >> 19543808

Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Nalin Payakachat1, Kent H Summers, Andreas M Pleil, Matthew M Murawski, Joseph Thomas, Kristofer Jennings, James G Anderson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In this study, we explored different statistical approaches to identify the best algorithm to predict EQ-5D utility scores from the NEI-VFQ 25 in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).
METHODS: Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviation (CLAD) approaches were compared using cross-sectional data (primary dataset, n = 151) at screening from a phase I/II clinical trial in patients with AMD. Three models were specified in this study: full (includes all 12 dimensions of the NEI-VFQ 25), short (includes only the general health dimension and the composite score), and reduced model (using stepwise regression). To evaluate the predictive accuracy of the models, the mean absolute prediction error (MAPE), mean error, and root means squared error were calculated using in-sample cross-validation (within the primary dataset) and out-of-sample validation using an independent dataset (n = 393). The model that provided the lowest prediction errors was chosen as the best model.
RESULTS: In-sample cross-validation and out-of-sample validation consistently demonstrated that, compared to other approaches, heteroscedasticity-adjusted OLS produced the lowest MAPE (mean values were 0.1400, 0.1593, respectively) for the full model, while CLAD performed best for the short and reduced models (mean values were 0.1299, 0.1483, respectively). The normality and homoscedasticity assumptions of both OLS and Tobit were rejected. CLAD, however, can accommodate these particular violations.
CONCLUSIONS: The CLAD-short model is recommended for producing the EQ-5D utility scores when only the NEI-VFQ 25 data are available.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19543808     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  42 in total

Review 1.  Bayesian extensions of the Tobit model for analyzing measures of health status.

Authors:  Peter C Austin
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2002 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36.

Authors:  John Brazier; Jennifer Roberts; Mark Deverill
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Evaluating quality-adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index (HUI2) from the SF-36.

Authors:  M B Nichol; N Sengupta; D R Globe
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2001 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Whose quality of life? or Whose decision?

Authors:  Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Development of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

Authors:  C M Mangione; P P Lee; P R Gutierrez; K Spritzer; S Berry; R D Hays
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2001-07

6.  Preference-Based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States.

Authors:  Patrick W Sullivan; Vahram Ghushchyan
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

7.  Measuring population health: a comparison of three generic health status measures.

Authors:  Susan Macran; Helen Weatherly; Paul Kind
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values.

Authors:  M R Gold; P Franks; K I McCoy; D G Fryback
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Burden and health care resource utilization in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: findings of a multicountry study.

Authors:  Gisèle Soubrane; Alan Cruess; Andrew Lotery; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Jordi Monès; Xiao Xu; Gergana Zlateva; Ronald Buggage; John Conlon; Thomas F Goss
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2007-09

10.  Is the NEI-VFQ-25 a useful tool in identifying visual impairment in an elderly population?

Authors:  Christopher G Owen; Alicja R Rudnicka; Liam Smeeth; Jennifer R Evans; Richard P L Wormald; Astrid E Fletcher
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 2.209

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.

Authors:  Fang-Ju Lin; Louise Longworth; A Simon Pickard
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective piecewise linear regression analysis.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; Hao-Hsien Lee; Meng-Han Tsai; Chong-Chi Chiu; Yih-Huei Uen; King-Teh Lee
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Mapping CHU9D Utility Scores from the PedsQLTM 4.0 SF-15.

Authors:  Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa; Gang Chen; Remo Russo; Katherine Stevens; Karin Dam Petersen; Julie Ratcliffe
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Nalin Payakachat; J Mick Tilford; Karen A Kuhlthau; N Job van Exel; Erica Kovacs; Jayne Bellando; Jeffrey M Pyne; Werner B F Brouwer
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 5.216

5.  Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index.

Authors:  Billingsley Kaambwa; Lucinda Billingham; Stirling Bryan
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2011-11-02

6.  Mapping the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL™) Generic Core Scales onto the Child Health Utility Index-9 Dimension (CHU-9D) Score for Economic Evaluation in Children.

Authors:  Tosin Lambe; Emma Frew; Natalie J Ives; Rebecca L Woolley; Carole Cummins; Elizabeth A Brettell; Emma N Barsoum; Nicholas J A Webb
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning.

Authors:  C Browne; J Brazier; J Carlton; Y Alavi; M Jofre-Bonet
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 3.775

8.  Mapping health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) score, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) onto the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) utility score with the KORean Observational study Network for Arthritis (KORONA) registry data.

Authors:  Hye-Lin Kim; Dam Kim; Eun Jin Jang; Min-Young Lee; Hyun Jin Song; Sun-Young Park; Soo-Kyung Cho; Yoon-Kyoung Sung; Chan-Bum Choi; Soyoung Won; So-Young Bang; Hoon-Suk Cha; Jung-Yoon Choe; Won Tae Chung; Seung-Jae Hong; Jae-Bum Jun; Jinseok Kim; Seong-Kyu Kim; Tae-Hwan Kim; Tae-Jong Kim; Eunmi Koh; Hwajeong Lee; Hye-Soon Lee; Jisoo Lee; Shin-Seok Lee; Sung Won Lee; Sung-Hoon Park; Seung-Cheol Shim; Dae-Hyun Yoo; Bo Young Yoon; Sang-Cheol Bae; Eui-Kyung Lee
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 2.631

9.  Generic and disease-specific estimates of quality of life in macular degeneration: mapping the MacDQoL onto the EQ-5D-3L.

Authors:  Padraig Dixon; Helen Dakin; Sarah Wordsworth
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration.

Authors:  Stavros Petrou; Oliver Rivero-Arias; Helen Dakin; Louise Longworth; Mark Oppe; Robert Froud; Alastair Gray
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.981

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.