Literature DB >> 24568628

Mapping the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) to EQ-5D utility scores.

Stephen Kay1, Alberto Ferreira.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a mapping algorithm for the estimation of EQ-5D-based utility scores from observed 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) scores, a disease-specific, patient-reported outcome measure used in several retinal disorders to evaluate vision-specific functioning.
METHODS: The dataset comprised 951 paired EQ-5D/NEI VFQ-25 observations from 344 patients in RESTORE, a 12-month, randomized, double-blind trial in individuals with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema. EQ-5D index scores (utilities) were calculated based on the UK tariff. We evaluated 11 models using predictor sets based on the NEI VFQ-25 subscales to estimate utility as a function of NEI VFQ-25 score, based on four modeling techniques. Model performance was assessed by 10-fold cross-validation comparing root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE) and correlation with EQ-5D score (Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients).
RESULTS: Mapping results were similar across all techniques and predictor sets. The reverse two-part generalized estimating equation model used fewest predictors and had the best predictive performance (RMSE 0.200, MAE 0.140). Predicted and original EQ-5D values were not strongly correlated (squared Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.34).
CONCLUSIONS: Although mapping disease-specific instruments to EQ-5D utilities is a preferred method by some reimbursement bodies, finding an appropriate mapping equation is not straightforward. In this study, mapping NEI VFQ-25 scores to EQ-5D utilities provided low predictive power, independent of the modeling methodology applied, suggesting an inability of the EQ-5D to discriminate vision-related activities, and highlighting that mapping exercises may lead to inaccurate utility values that do not represent patients' preferences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24568628     DOI: 10.3109/09286586.2014.888456

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Epidemiol        ISSN: 0928-6586            Impact factor:   1.648


  8 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life (QoL) impairments in patients with a pituitary adenoma: a systematic review of QoL studies.

Authors:  Cornelie D Andela; Margreet Scharloo; Alberto M Pereira; Ad A Kaptein; Nienke R Biermasz
Journal:  Pituitary       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 4.107

Review 2.  Challenges of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Novel Therapeutics for Inherited Retinal Diseases.

Authors:  K Thiran Jayasundera; Rebhi O Abuzaitoun; Gabrielle D Lacy; Maria Fernanda Abalem; Gregory M Saltzman; Thomas A Ciulla; Mark W Johnson
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-08-22       Impact factor: 5.258

3.  Mapping the Haem-A-QoL to the EQ-5D-5L in patients with hemophilia.

Authors:  Richard Huan Xu; Dong Dong; Nan Luo; Eliza Lai-Yi Wong; Renchi Yang; Junshuai Liu; Huiqin Yuan; Shuyang Zhang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Utility Index and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Glaucomatous Patients Comparing with Normal Participants.

Authors:  Kulawan Rojananuangnit; Nuttawan Sudjinda
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-25

5.  Caregiver Burden in Patients Receiving Ranibizumab Therapy for Neovascular Age Related Macular Degeneration.

Authors:  Rishma Gohil; Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi; Angus Forbes; Ben Burton; Phil Hykin; Sobha Sivaprasad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The use of weighted health-related Quality of Life scores in people with diabetic macular oedema at baseline in a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  P H Scanlon; J Loftus; C Starita; I M Stratton
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 4.359

7.  Preference-based disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for glaucoma: a mixed methods study protocol.

Authors:  Sergei Muratov; Dominik W Podbielski; Susan M Jack; Iqbal Ike K Ahmed; Levine A H Mitchell; Monika Baltaziak; Feng Xie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Predictors of problems reported on the EQ-5D-3L dimensions among people with impaired vision in northern Portugal.

Authors:  Antonio Filipe Macedo; Amanda Hellström; Robert Massof; Hanna Tuvesson; Mikael Rask; Pedro Lima Ramos; Jalal Safipour; Ina Marteinsdottir; Evalill Nilsson; Cecilia Fagerström; Kristofer Årestedt
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 3.077

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.