Literature DB >> 30945127

An Updated Systematic Review of Studies Mapping (or Cross-Walking) Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life to Generic Preference-Based Measures to Generate Utility Values.

Clara Mukuria1, Donna Rowen2, Sue Harnan2, Andrew Rawdin2, Ruth Wong2, Roberta Ara2, John Brazier2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mapping is an increasingly common method used to predict instrument-specific preference-based health-state utility values (HSUVs) from data obtained from another health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure. There have been several methodological developments in this area since a previous review up to 2007.
OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated review of all mapping studies that map from HRQoL measures to target generic preference-based measures (EQ-5D measures, SF-6D, HUI measures, QWB, AQoL measures, 15D/16D/17D, CHU-9D) published from January 2007 to October 2018. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of English language articles using a variety of approaches: searching electronic and utilities databases, citation searching, targeted journal and website searches. STUDY SELECTION: Full papers of studies that mapped from one health measure to a target preference-based measure using formal statistical regression techniques. DATA EXTRACTION: Undertaken by four authors using predefined data fields including measures, data used, econometric models and assessment of predictive ability.
RESULTS: There were 180 papers with 233 mapping functions in total. Mapping functions were generated to obtain EQ-5D-3L/EQ-5D-5L-EQ-5D-Y (n = 147), SF-6D (n = 45), AQoL-4D/AQoL-8D (n = 12), HUI2/HUI3 (n = 13), 15D (n = 8) CHU-9D (n = 4) and QWB-SA (n = 4) HSUVs. A large number of different regression methods were used with ordinary least squares (OLS) still being the most common approach (used ≥ 75% times within each preference-based measure). The majority of studies assessed the predictive ability of the mapping functions using mean absolute or root mean squared errors (n = 192, 82%), but this was lower when considering errors across different categories of severity (n = 92, 39%) and plots of predictions (n = 120, 52%).
CONCLUSIONS: The last 10 years has seen a substantial increase in the number of mapping studies and some evidence of advancement in methods with consideration of models beyond OLS and greater reporting of predictive ability of mapping functions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30945127     DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00467-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy        ISSN: 1175-5652            Impact factor:   2.561


  17 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.  Mapping the obesity problems scale to the SF-6D: results based on the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg).

Authors:  Sun Sun; Erik Stenberg; Yang Cao; Lars Lindholm; Klas-Göran Salén; Karl A Franklin; Nan Luo
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2022-05-20

4.  Indirect and Direct Mapping of the Cancer-Specific EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D-5L Utility Scores.

Authors:  Aurelie Meunier; Alexandra Soare; Helene Chevrou-Severac; Karl-Johan Myren; Tatsunori Murata; Louise Longworth
Journal:  Appl Health Econ Health Policy       Date:  2021-09-23       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Using qualitative methods for a conceptual analysis of measures of health status and presenteeism prior to a mapping study.

Authors:  Cheryl Jones; Katherine Payne; Suzanne M M Verstappen
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Psychometric assessment of EQ-5D-5L and ReQoL measures in patients with anxiety and depression: construct validity and responsiveness.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; Angel Enrique; Jorge Palacios; Derek Richards
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Estimation of losses of quality-adjusted life expectancy attributed to the combination of cognitive impairment and multimorbidity among Chinese adults aged 45 years and older.

Authors:  Suting Xiong; Siyuan Liu; Yanan Qiao; Dingliu He; Chaofu Ke; Yueping Shen
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-01-05       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Conducting Value for Money Analyses for Non-randomised Interventional Studies Including Service Evaluations: An Educational Review with Recommendations.

Authors:  Matthew Franklin; James Lomas; Gerry Richardson
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 4.981

Review 9.  Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review.

Authors:  Imogen Ramsey; Marion Eckert; Amanda D Hutchinson; Julie Marker; Nadia Corsini
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2020-09-15

10.  Protocol for the development of a repository of individual participant data from randomised controlled trials conducted in adult care homes (the Virtual International Care Homes Trials Archive (VICHTA)).

Authors:  Lisa Irvine; Jennifer Kirsty Burton; Myzoon Ali; Terence J Quinn; Claire Goodman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.