Nicolas R Thompson1,2, Brittany R Lapin3,4, Irene L Katzan4. 1. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. thompsn@ccf.org. 2. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJN3-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. thompsn@ccf.org. 3. Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 4. Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, JJN3-1, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mapping Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) to EuroQol 5-dimension, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) provides a utility score for use in quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness analyses. In 2009, Revicki et al. mapped the PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utilities using linear regression (REVReg). More recently, regression was shown to be ill-suited for mapping to preference-based measures due to regression to the mean. Linear and equipercentile equating are alternative mapping methods that avoid the issue of regression to the mean. Another limitation of the prior models is that ordinal predictors were treated as continuous. METHODS: Using data collected from the PROMIS Wave 1 sample, we refit REVReg, treating the PROMIS-GH items as categorical variables (CATReg). We applied linear and equipercentile equating to the REVReg model (REVLE, REVequip) and the CATReg model (CATLE, CATequip). We validated and compared the predictive accuracy of these models in a large sample of neurological patients at a single tertiary-care hospital. RESULTS: In the neurological disease patient sample, CATLE produced the strongest correlations between estimated and observed EQ-5D-3L scores and had the lowest mean squared error. The CATequip model had the lowest mean absolute error and had estimated scores that best matched the overall distribution of observed scores. CONCLUSIONS: Using linear and equipercentile equating, we created new models mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utility scores. EQ-5D-3L utility scores can be more accurately estimated using our models for use in cost-effectiveness studies or studies examining overall health-related quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Mapping Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) to EuroQol 5-dimension, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) provides a utility score for use in quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness analyses. In 2009, Revicki et al. mapped the PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utilities using linear regression (REVReg). More recently, regression was shown to be ill-suited for mapping to preference-based measures due to regression to the mean. Linear and equipercentile equating are alternative mapping methods that avoid the issue of regression to the mean. Another limitation of the prior models is that ordinal predictors were treated as continuous. METHODS: Using data collected from the PROMIS Wave 1 sample, we refit REVReg, treating the PROMIS-GH items as categorical variables (CATReg). We applied linear and equipercentile equating to the REVReg model (REVLE, REVequip) and the CATReg model (CATLE, CATequip). We validated and compared the predictive accuracy of these models in a large sample of neurological patients at a single tertiary-care hospital. RESULTS: In the neurological diseasepatient sample, CATLE produced the strongest correlations between estimated and observed EQ-5D-3L scores and had the lowest mean squared error. The CATequip model had the lowest mean absolute error and had estimated scores that best matched the overall distribution of observed scores. CONCLUSIONS: Using linear and equipercentile equating, we created new models mapping PROMIS-GH items to EQ-5D-3L utility scores. EQ-5D-3L utility scores can be more accurately estimated using our models for use in cost-effectiveness studies or studies examining overall health-related quality of life.
Authors: David Feeny; William Furlong; George W Torrance; Charles H Goldsmith; Zenglong Zhu; Sonja DePauw; Margaret Denton; Michael Boyle Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Honghu Liu; David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jie Shen; Leo S Morales; William Riley; Ron D Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Stefan Sauerland; Sylvia Weiner; Karin Dolezalova; Luigi Angrisani; Carlos Masdevall Noguera; Manuel García-Caballero; Frédéric Rupprecht; Marc Immenroth Journal: Value Health Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Nicolas R Thompson; Brittany R Lapin; Michael P Steinmetz; Edward C Benzel; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: Tianxin Pan; Brendan Mulhern; Rosalie Viney; Richard Norman; An Tran-Duy; Janel Hanmer; Nancy Devlin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Deborah Y Park; Martin C Tom; Wei Wei; Surabhi Tewari; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Jennifer S Yu; Samuel T Chao; John H Suh; David Peereboom; Glen H J Stevens; Gene H Barnett; Lilyana Angelov; Alireza M Mohammadi; Thomas Hogan; Courtney Kissel; Brittany Lapin; Isabel Schuermeyer; Michael W Parsons; Richard Naugle; Erin S Murphy Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 4.130