Literature DB >> 28212961

Mapping to Estimate Health-State Utility from Non-Preference-Based Outcome Measures: An ISPOR Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force Report.

Allan J Wailoo1, Monica Hernandez-Alava2, Andrea Manca3, Aurelio Mejia4, Joshua Ray5, Bruce Crawford6, Marc Botteman7, Jan Busschbach8.   

Abstract

Economic evaluation conducted in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) provides information that decision makers find useful in many parts of the world. Ideally, clinical studies designed to assess the effectiveness of health technologies would include outcome measures that are directly linked to health utility to calculate QALYs. Often this does not happen, and even when it does, clinical studies may be insufficient for a cost-utility assessment. Mapping can solve this problem. It uses an additional data set to estimate the relationship between outcomes measured in clinical studies and health utility. This bridges the evidence gap between available evidence on the effect of a health technology in one metric and the requirement for decision makers to express it in a different one (QALYs). In 2014, ISPOR established a Good Practices for Outcome Research Task Force for mapping studies. This task force report provides recommendations to analysts undertaking mapping studies, those that use the results in cost-utility analysis, and those that need to critically review such studies. The recommendations cover all areas of mapping practice: the selection of data sets for the mapping estimation, model selection and performance assessment, reporting standards, and the use of results including the appropriate reflection of variability and uncertainty. This report is unique because it takes an international perspective, is comprehensive in its coverage of the aspects of mapping practice, and reflects the current state of the art.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  economic evaluation; health utility; mapping; quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28212961     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  56 in total

1.  Mapping clinical outcomes to generic preference-based outcome measures: development and comparison of methods.

Authors:  Mónica Hernández Alava; Allan Wailoo; Stephen Pudney; Laura Gray; Andrea Manca
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.014

Review 2.  A Review of Utility Measurement Methods Used in Pharmacoeconomic Submissions to HIRA in South Korea: Methodological Consistency and Areas for Improvement.

Authors:  Jihyung Hong; Eun-Young Bae
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 4.981

3.  The impact of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis on health state utility values: evidence from Australia.

Authors:  E Haydn Walters; Andrew J Palmer; Ingrid A Cox; Barbara de Graaff; Hasnat Ahmed; Julie Campbell; Petr Otahal; Tamera J Corte; Ian Glaspole; Yuben Moodley; Nicole Goh; Sacha Macansh
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Mapping Quality of Life (EQ-5D) from DAPsA, Clinical DAPsA and HAQ in Psoriatic Arthritis.

Authors:  Tomas Mlcoch; Jan Tuzil; Liliana Sedova; Jiri Stolfa; Monika Urbanova; David Suchy; Andrea Smrzova; Jitka Jircikova; Tereza Hrnciarova; Karel Pavelka; Tomas Dolezal
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 5.  Recommended Methods for the Collection of Health State Utility Value Evidence in Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; John Brazier; Tracey Young
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 6.  The Use of Mapping to Estimate Health State Utility Values.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; Donna Rowen; Clara Mukuria
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

7.  Sourcing and Using Appropriate Health State Utility Values in Economic Models in Health Care.

Authors:  Roberta Ara; Tessa Peasgood; Clara Mukuria; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Donna Rowen; Ismail Azzabi-Zouraq; Suzy Paisley; Tracey Young; Ben van Hout; John Brazier
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.981

8.  Mapping the Chinese Version of the EORTC QLQ-BR53 Onto the EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D Utility Scores.

Authors:  Tong Liu; Shunping Li; Min Wang; Qiang Sun; Gang Chen
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Intravitreal ranibizumab versus aflibercept versus bevacizumab for macular oedema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the LEAVO non-inferiority three-arm RCT.

Authors:  Philip Hykin; A Toby Prevost; Sobha Sivaprasad; Joana C Vasconcelos; Caroline Murphy; Joanna Kelly; Jayashree Ramu; Abualbishr Alshreef; Laura Flight; Rebekah Pennington; Barry Hounsome; Ellen Lever; Andrew Metry; Edith Poku; Yit Yang; Simon P Harding; Andrew Lotery; Usha Chakravarthy; John Brazier
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2021-06       Impact factor: 4.014

10.  Mapping PedsQLTM scores onto CHU9D utility scores: estimation, validation and a comparison of alternative instrument versions.

Authors:  Rohan Sweeney; Gang Chen; Lisa Gold; Fiona Mensah; Melissa Wake
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 4.147

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.