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.

译文

背景:在世界范围内,针对EQ-5D的特定于发展中国家的评分算法的兴趣日益浓厚。这项研究系统地回顾了所有现有的EQ-5D评估研究,以突出它们的优势和局限性,使用元回归分析观测到的公用事业中的异质性,并提出了用于报告EQ-5D评估研究的方法清单。
方法:。从开始到2012年11月,我们通过Wiley的Cochrane图书馆搜索了Medline,EMBASE,国家卫生服务经济评估数据库(NHS EED)和Wiley的卫生经济评估数据库,以及1991年至1991年的主要论文书目和EuroQol全体会议记录。 2012年用于EQ-5D评估研究的英语报告。两名审稿人独立筛选了标题和摘要以确保相关性。三名审阅者进行了数据提取,并比较了包括在评估研究中的特征和评分算法。
结果:。该评价纳入的31项研究中,有19项使用了时间权衡(TTO)技术,有10项使用了视觉模拟量表(VAS)技术,还有2项同时使用了TTO和VAS。大多数研究包括通过随机抽样或定额抽样从普通人群中选择的受访者,并使用了面对面访谈或邮政调查的方式。研究评估了7至198个总州之间的价值,每个受访者评估了1至23个州的价值。已经提出了用于评分的不同模型规格。一些样本或人口统计因素,包括性别,教育程度,城市人口百分比和国家卫生保健支出,与中度或重度健康状态的观测公用事业差异有关。
结论:迄今为止,进行的EQ-5D评估研究在设计和产生的评分算法上千差万别。因此,我们为进行估值研究的人员提出了EQ-5D估值研究报告清单(CREATE)。

+1
+2
100研值 100研值 ¥99课程
检索文献一次
下载文献一次

去下载>

成功解锁2个技能,为你点赞

《SCI写作十大必备语法》
解决你的SCI语法难题!

技能熟练度+1

视频课《玩转文献检索》
让你成为检索达人!

恭喜完成新手挑战

手机微信扫一扫,添加好友领取

免费领《Endnote文献管理工具+教程》

微信扫码, 免费领取

手机登录

获取验证码
登录