Review of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: an online database

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Helen Dakin¹ 

[1] Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

关键词: Health-related quality of life;    Crosswalking;    Mapping;    Utility;    EQ-5D;    EuroQoL;   

Others  :  823239
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-151

 received in 2013-04-22, accepted in 2013-08-28,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Systematic literature searches were conducted to identify studies that conducted statistical mapping to predict EQ-5D utilities or responses from any source instrument and reported the estimated algorithms in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to use them to predict EQ-5D in other studies. Ninety studies reporting 121 mapping algorithms met the inclusion criteria. The studies estimated EQ-5D utilities from 80 source instruments. All but two studies included direct utility mapping to predict EQ-5D utilities, while 20 studies (22%) conducted response mapping to predict responses to each EQ-5D domain. Seventy-two studies (80%) explored ordinary least squares regression and 16 (18%) used censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) models. The details of the studies identified are made available in an online database, which will be updated regularly to enable researchers to easily identify studies that can help them to estimate utilities for economic evaluation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Dakin; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Rasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R: Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: a systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006, 22:235-241.
• [2]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. 2013. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/media/D45/1E/GuideToMethodsTechnologyAppraisal2013.pdf (accessed 12th April 2013)
• [3]Brazier JE, Yang Y, Tsuchiya A, Rowen DL: A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ 2010, 11:215-225.
• [4]Round J: Capturing information loss in estimates of uncertainty that arise from mapping algorithms. Aberdeen: Presented at the Health Economics Study Group (HESG) meeting, Summer 2008; 2008.
• [5]Mortimer D, Segal L: Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY-weights. Med Decis Making 2008, 28:66-89.
• [6]Longworth L, Rowen D: Mapping to obtain EQ-5D utility values for use in NICE health technology assessments. Value Health 2013, 16:202-210.
• [7]Lin FJ, Longworth L, Pickard AS: Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:853.
• [8]Stein K, Fry A, Round A, Milne R, Brazier J: What value health? A review of health state values used in early technology assessments for NICE. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2005, 4:219-228.
• [9]Ades AE, Lu G, Madan JJ: Which health-related quality-of-life outcome when planning randomized trials: disease-specific or generic, or both? A common factor model. Value Health 2013, 16:185-194.
• [10]Borchani H, Bielza C, Marti Nez-Marti NP, Larranaga P: Markov blanket-based approach for learning multi-dimensional bayesian network classifiers: an application to predict the European quality of life-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) from the 39-item Parkinson’s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39). J Biomed Inform 2012, 45:1175-1184.
• [11]Briggs AH, Bousquet J, Wallace MV, Busse WW, Clark TJ, Pedersen SE, Bateman ED: Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: an economic appraisal of the GOAL study. Allergy 2006, 61:531-536.
• [12]Chancellor JV, Coyle D, Drummond MF: Constructing health state preference values from descriptive quality of life outcomes: mission impossible? Qual Life Res 1997, 6:159-168.
• [13]Choi HK, Michaud K, Wolfe F: Utility measures in rheumatic disorders. Arthritis Rheum 2002, 46:S76.
• [14]Chuang LH, Kind P: Converting the SF-12 into the EQ-5D: an empirical comparison of methodologies. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27:491-505.
• [15]Clayson DJ, Briggs AH, Sculpher M, De Hert M: Mapping utility scores from the EQ-5D and SF-6D onto the schizophrenia quality of life scale. Value Health 2004, 7:277.
• [16]Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim JS: Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med Decis Making 2010, 30:5-15.
• [17]Kuspinar A, Mayo NE: Do generic utility measures capture what is important to the quality of life of people with multiple sclerosis? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:71. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Le QA, Doctor JN: Probabilistic mapping of descriptive health status responses onto health state utilities using Bayesian networks: an empirical analysis converting SF-12 into EQ-5D utility index in a national US sample. Med Care 2011, 49:451-460.
• [19]Lu G, Brazier JE, Ades AE: Mapping from disease-specific to generic health-related quality-of-life scales: a common factor model. Value Health 2013, 16:177-184.
• [20]McEwan P, Kind P, Dixon S, Currie CJ: Using an artificial neural network to predict utility scores from SF-36 data. Value in Health 2004, 7:305.
• [21]McEwan P, Morrissey M, Currie CJ: PMD30: an improved model to calculate utility scores from SF-36 data. Value in Health 2003, 6:302-303.
• [22]Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Vergel YB, Misso K, Light K, Chalmers R, Sculpher M, Riemsma R: Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2006, 10:1-233. i-iv
• [23]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2008. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf webcite (accessed 13th July 2010)
• [24]Longworth L, Rowen D: NICE DSU technical support document 10: the use of mapping methods to estimate health state utility values. Sheffield: Decision Support Unit, ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2011. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD%2010%20mapping%20FINAL.pdf webcite (Accessed 21st December 2012)
• [25]Poole CD, Connolly MP, Nielsen SK, Currie CJ, Marteau P: A comparison of physician-rated disease severity and patient reported outcomes in mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis 2010, 4:275-282.
• [26]Longworth L: Estimating quality adjusted life years where health-related utility data are missing. Uxbridge, UK: PhD thesis Brunel University; 2007.
• [27]Dakin H, Gray A, Murray D: Mapping analyses to estimate EQ-5D utilities and responses based on Oxford knee score. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:683-694.
• [28]Edlin R, Tsuchiya A, Brazier J: Mapping the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire to the EQ-5D index. 2002. [Report to Novartis contact authors for further details]
• [29]Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM: Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006, 26:18-29.
• [30]Gu NY, Bell C, Botteman MF, Ji X, Carter JA, van Hout B: Estimating preference-based EQ-5D health state utilities or item responses from neuropathic pain scores. Patient 2012, 5:185-197.
• [31]Hernández Alava M, Wailoo A, Wolfe F, Michaud K: A comparison of direct and indirect methods for the estimation of health utilities from clinical outcomes. Sheffield, UK: University of Sheffield; 2012. HEDS Discussion Paper http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Mapping%20of%20EQ-5D.DP.pdf webcite (accessed 3rd December 2012)
• [32]Kaambwa B, Billingham L, Bryan S: Mapping utility scores from the Barthel index. Eur J Health Econ 2013, 14:231-241.
• [33]Madan J, Khan K, Lamb SE, Petrou S: A comparison of Bayesian and frequentist approaches for mapping between the Roland Morris disability questionnaire and generic preference-based measures. Exeter, UK: Presented at the Health Economics Study Group (HESG) meeting, January 2013; 2013.
• [34]McKenzie L, van der Pol M: Mapping the EORTC QLQ C-30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health 2009, 12:167-171.
• [35]Pinedo-Villanueva RA, Turner D, Judge A, Raftery JP, Arden NK: Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:665-675.
• [36]Rivero-Arias O, Ouellet M, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Rothwell PM, Luengo-Fernandez R: Mapping the modified Rankin scale (mRS) measurement into the generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcome. Med Decis Making 2010, 30:341-354.
• [37]Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, McColl E, Parkin D: A condition-specific instrument, a generic instrument, and a preference based generic instrument. Denmark: Presented at the 17th Plenary Meeting of the EuroQoL Group in Copenhagen; 2001.
• [38]van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, Lloyd A, Scalone L, Kind P, Pickard AS: Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012, 15:708-715.
• [39]Young MK, Ng SK, Mellick G, Scuffham PA: Mapping of the PDQ-39 to EQ-5D scores in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Qual Life Res 2013, 22:1065-1072.
• [40]Huang IC, Frangakis C, Atkinson MJ, Willke RJ, Leite WL, Vogel WB, Wu AW: Addressing ceiling effects in health status measures: a comparison of techniques applied to measures for people with HIV disease. Health Serv Res 2008, 43:327-339.
• [41]Hernández Alava M, Wailoo AJ, Ara R: Tails from the peak district: adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models of EQ-5D questionnaire health state utility values. Value Health 2012, 15:550-561.
• [42]Hernández Alava M, Wailoo A, Wolfe F, Michaud K: The relationship between EQ-5D, HAQ and pain in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013, 52:944-950.
• [43]Young T, Mukuria C, Rowen D, Brazier J, Longworth L: Direct mapping to the EQ-5D index: what is the appropriate model?. [Presented at the 9th World Congress of the International Health Economics Association in Sydney Australia in July 2013]
• [44]Jia H, Zack MM, Moriarty DG, Fryback DG: Predicting the EuroQol Group’s EQ-5D index from CDC’s “healthy days” in a US sample. Med Decis Making 2011, 31:174.
• [45]Wolfe F, Michaud K, Wallenstein G: Scale characteristics and mapping accuracy of the US EQ-5D, UK EQ-5D, and SF-6D in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2010, 37:1615-1625.
• [46]Dams J, Klotsche J, Bornschein B, Reese JP, Balzer-Geldsetzer M, Winter Y, Schrag A, Siderowf A, Oertel WH, Deuschl G, et al.: Mapping the EQ-5D index by UPDRS and PDQ-8 in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013, 11:35. BioMed Central Full Text
• [47]Parker M, Haycox A, Graves J: Estimating the relationship between preference-based generic utility instruments and disease-specific quality-of-life measures in severe chronic constipation: challenges in practice. Pharmacoeconomics 2011, 29:719-730.
• [48]Rowen D, Brazier J, Roberts J: Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship? Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009, 7:27. BioMed Central Full Text
• [49]Soini EJ, Hallinen TA, Puolakka K, Vihervaara V, Kauppi MJ: Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. J Med Econ 2012, 15:340-351.
• [50]Wu EQ, Mulani P, Farrell MH, Sleep D: Mapping FACT-P and EORTC QLQ-C30 to patient health status measured by EQ-5D in metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer patients. Value Health 2007, 10:408-414.
• [51]Rowen D, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, Alava MH: Valuing states from multiple measures on the same visual analogue sale: a feasibility study. Health Econ 2012, 21:715.
• [52]Richardson J, Iezzi A, Khan M, Maxwell A: Cross-national comparison of twelve quality of life instruments, MIC Paper 2. Australia: Monash Centre for Health Economics Research Paper 78; 2012. http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/centres/che/che-publications.html webcite (accessed 18th July 2013)