Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19543808›Full record

Trial reportQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2009

Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration.

Nalin Payakachat, Kent H Summers, Andreas M Pleil, Matthew M Murawski, Joseph Thomas, Kristofer Jennings, James G Anderson

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mapping the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores to EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D utility scores in patients with schizophrenia.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  10. A comparison of the responsiveness of EQ-5D-5L and the QOLIE-31P and mapping of QOLIE-31P to EQ-5D-5L in epilepsy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Generic and disease-specific estimates of quality of life in macular degeneration: mapping the MacDQoL onto the EQ-5D-3L.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016
    Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Predicting health utilities for children with autism spectrum disorders.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Responsiveness of the EQ-5D to the effects of low vision rehabilitation.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2013
    Article
  20. Evaluation of content on EQ-5D as compared to disease-specific utility measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2013
    Review
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

7 authors.

Nalin PayakachatDivision of Pharmaceutical Evaluation and Policy, Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. npayakachat@uams.edu
Kent H Summers
Andreas M Pleil
Matthew M Murawski
Joseph Thomas
Kristofer Jennings
James G Anderson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this study, we explored different statistical approaches to identify the best algorithm to predict EQ-5D utility scores from the NEI-VFQ 25 in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

methodsOrdinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviation (CLAD) approaches were compared using cross-sectional data (primary dataset, n = 151) at screening from a phase I/II clinical trial in patients with AMD. Three models were specified in this study: full (includes all 12 dimensions of the NEI-VFQ 25), short (includes only the general health dimension and the composite score), and reduced model (using stepwise regression). To evaluate the predictive accuracy of the models, the mean absolute prediction error (MAPE), mean error, and root means squared error were calculated using in-sample cross-validation (within the primary dataset) and out-of-sample validation using an independent dataset (n = 393). The model that provided the lowest prediction errors was chosen as the best model.

resultsIn-sample cross-validation and out-of-sample validation consistently demonstrated that, compared to other approaches, heteroscedasticity-adjusted OLS produced the lowest MAPE (mean values were 0.1400, 0.1593, respectively) for the full model, while CLAD performed best for the short and reduced models (mean values were 0.1299, 0.1483, respectively). The normality and homoscedasticity assumptions of both OLS and Tobit were rejected. CLAD, however, can accommodate these particular violations.

conclusionsThe CLAD-short model is recommended for producing the EQ-5D utility scores when only the NEI-VFQ 25 data are available.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, StatisticalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisMacular DegenerationMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSickness Impact ProfileSurveys and QuestionnairesVision Screening

Identifiers

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.