Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10947338›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2000

Valuing health-related quality of life. A review of health state valuation techniques.

C Green, J Brazier, M Deverill

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

83 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Benefits beyond health in the willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

C GreenSheffield Health Economics Group, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, England.
J Brazier
M Deverill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the growing need to value health-related quality of life, a review of the literature relating to health state valuation techniques was undertaken to appraise the current theoretical and empirical evidence available to inform on the techniques, to identify consensus, identify disagreement and identify important areas for future research. A systematic search of the literature was conducted, covering standard gamble (SG), time trade-off (TTO), visual analogue scale (VAS), magnitude estimation (ME) and person trade-off (PTO) techniques. The basic concepts of practicality, reliability, theoretical validity and empirical validity formed the criteria for reviewing the performance of valuation techniques. In terms of practicality and reliability, we found little evidence relating to ME and PTO. SG, TTO and VAS have been shown to be practical on a range of populations. There is little difference between the reliability of SG, TTO and VAS, and present evidence does not offer a basis to differentiate between them. When considering the theoretical basis of techniques, we conclude that choice-based methods (i.e. SG, TTO and PTO) are best placed to reflect the strength of preference for health, with the choice between these techniques depending on the study characteristics and the perspective employed. Empirical evidence relating to the theoretical perspective of the techniques has shown that there are problems with all techniques in terms of descriptive validity.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeEconomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID10947338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.