Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford Knee Score

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a validated 12-item measure of knee replacement outcomes. An algorithm to estimate EQ-5D utilities from OKS would facilitate cost-utility analysis on studies analyses using OKS but not generic health state preference measures. We estimate mapping (or cross-walking) models that predict EQ-5D utilities and/or responses based on OKS. We also compare different model specifications and assess whether different datasets yield different mapping algorithms. METHODS: Models were estimated using data from the Knee Arthroplasty Trial and the UK Patient Reported Outcome Measures dataset, giving a combined estimation dataset of 134,269 questionnaires from 81,213 knee replacement patients and an internal validation dataset of 45,213 questionnaires from 27,397 patients. The best model was externally validated on registry data (10,002 observations from 4,505 patients) from the South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre. Eight models of the relationship between OKS and EQ-5D were evaluated, including ordinary least squares, generalized linear models, two-part models, three-part models and response mapping. RESULTS: A multinomial response mapping model using OKS responses to predict EQ-5D response levels had best prediction accuracy, with two-part and three-part models also performing well. In the external validation sample, this model had a mean squared error of 0.033 and a mean absolute error of 0.129. Relative model performance, coefficients and predictions differed slightly but significantly between the two estimation datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The resulting response mapping algorithm can be used to predict EQ-5D utilities and responses from OKS responses. Response mapping appears to perform particularly well in large datasets.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.