Comparing EQ-5D Valuation Studies

Kathryn Gaebel · Kuhan Perampaladas · Brett Doble · Eleanor Pullenayegum

108 citations0/0 files storedMedical Decision Making

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Economic and Environmental Valuation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest around the world in developing country-specific scoring algorithms for the EQ-5D. This study systematically reviews all existing EQ-5D valuation studies to highlight their strengths and limitations, explores heterogeneity in observed utilities using meta-regression, and proposes a methodological checklist for reporting EQ-5D valuation studies. METHODS: . We searched Medline, EMBASE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) via Wiley's Cochrane Library, and Wiley's Health Economic Evaluation Database from inception through November 2012, as well as bibliographies of key papers and the EuroQol Plenary Meeting Proceedings from 1991 to 2012 for English-language reports of EQ-5D valuation studies. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for relevance. Three reviewers performed data extraction and compared the characteristics and scoring algorithms developed in the included valuation studies. RESULTS: . Of the 31 studies included in the review, 19 used the time trade-off (TTO) technique, 10 used the visual analogue scale (VAS) technique, and 2 used both TTO and VAS. Most studies included respondents from the general population selected by random or quota sampling and used face-to-face interviews or postal surveys. Studies valued between 7 and 198 total states, with 1-23 states valued per respondent. Different model specifications have been proposed for scoring. Some sample or demographic factors, including gender, education, percentage urban population, and national health care expenditure, were associated with differences in observed utilities for moderate or severe health states. CONCLUSIONS: . EQ-5D valuation studies conducted to date have varied widely in their design and in the resulting scoring algorithms. Therefore, we propose the Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of the EQ-5D (CREATE) for those conducting valuation studies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 108 citations exist upstream.

References

2011Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)1996EuroQol: the current state of play 1997Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials 2001The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized Trials 2005US Valuation of the EQ-5D Health States 2001Use of the CONSORT Statement and Quality of Reports of Randomized Trials 2006The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ‐5D valuation studies

Cited by

2019Normative Profile of Health-Related Quality of Life for Hong Kong General Population Using Preference-Based Instrument EQ-5D-5L 2019Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: impact on the interpretation of clinical study results 2018EQ-5D-5L Valuation for the Malaysian Population 2021Valuation of SF-6Dv2 Health States in China Using Time Trade-off and Discrete-Choice Experiment with a Duration Dimension

Explore the map →

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

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.