Saku Torvinen1, Susanne Bergius2, Risto Roine3, Leena Lodenius4, Harri Sintonen2, Kimmo Taari5. 1. University of Helsinki,Department of Public Healthsaku.torvinen@gmail.com. 2. University of Helsinki,Department of Public Health. 3. University of Eastern Finland,Research Center for Comparative Effectiveness and Patient Safety. 4. The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. 5. University of Helsinki,Institute of Clinical Medicine.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify and qualitatively describe, in a systematic literature review, published studies that collected prostate cancer patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) estimates by using validated, generic instruments. METHODS: Systematic searches of the literature were made using the Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL electronic databases from 2002 to 2015. RESULTS: The search identified 2,171 references, of which 237 were obtained for full-text assessment; thirty-three of these articles were deemed relevant and included in the systematic review. An indirect valuation method was used in 73 percent (n = 24) of the studies. The most commonly used HRQoL instrument with an indirect valuation method was the EuroQol (EQ-5D; n = 21), and the second most common was the 15D (n = 5). A direct valuation method was used in 48 percent (n = 16) of the studies. Of these, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the most often used (n = 10), followed by the Time-Trade-Off (n = 6). HRQoL scores varied in localized and early stage disease between 0.63 and 0.91, and in advanced or metastatic disease stage between 0.50 and 0.87. There was also variance in the HRQoL instruments and study methods used, which explains the large variance in HRQoL scores between the various disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Although utility and quality-adjusted life-years gained are considered important measures of effectiveness in health care, the number of studies in which utilities of prostate cancer patients have been estimated using generic HRQoL instruments, based on either direct or indirect measurement of HRQoL, is fairly small.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to identify and qualitatively describe, in a systematic literature review, published studies that collected prostate cancerpatients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) estimates by using validated, generic instruments. METHODS: Systematic searches of the literature were made using the Medline, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL electronic databases from 2002 to 2015. RESULTS: The search identified 2,171 references, of which 237 were obtained for full-text assessment; thirty-three of these articles were deemed relevant and included in the systematic review. An indirect valuation method was used in 73 percent (n = 24) of the studies. The most commonly used HRQoL instrument with an indirect valuation method was the EuroQol (EQ-5D; n = 21), and the second most common was the 15D (n = 5). A direct valuation method was used in 48 percent (n = 16) of the studies. Of these, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was the most often used (n = 10), followed by the Time-Trade-Off (n = 6). HRQoL scores varied in localized and early stage disease between 0.63 and 0.91, and in advanced or metastatic disease stage between 0.50 and 0.87. There was also variance in the HRQoL instruments and study methods used, which explains the large variance in HRQoL scores between the various disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: Although utility and quality-adjusted life-years gained are considered important measures of effectiveness in health care, the number of studies in which utilities of prostate cancerpatients have been estimated using generic HRQoL instruments, based on either direct or indirect measurement of HRQoL, is fairly small.
Authors: Yanfang Liu; Hirotsugu Uemura; Dingwei Ye; Ji Y Lee; Edmund Chiong; Yeong-S Pu; Azad H A Razack; Choosak Pripatnanont; Sudhir Rawal; Grace K M Low; Hong Qiu; Weng H Chow; Maximiliano Van Kooten Losio Journal: Prostate Int Date: 2018-12-24
Authors: Alessandra Castelluccia; Pierpaolo Mincarone; Maria Rosaria Tumolo; Saverio Sabina; Riccardo Colella; Antonella Bodini; Francesco Tramacere; Maurizio Portaluri; Carlo Giacomo Leo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-30 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Bram L T Ramaekers; Rob Riemsma; Florian Tomini; Thea van Asselt; Sohan Deshpande; Steven Duffy; Nigel Armstrong; Johan L Severens; Jos Kleijnen; Manuela A Joore Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.981