Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20151725›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010

Estimation of a valuation function for a diabetes mellitus-specific preference-based measure of health: the Diabetes Utility Index.

Murali Sundaram, Michael J Smith, Dennis A Revicki, Lesley-Ann Miller, Suresh Madhavan, Gerry Hobbs

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Dimensions Used in Instruments for QALY Calculation: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Murali SundaramDepartment of Pharmaceutical Systems and Policy, School of Pharmacy, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-9510, USA. doctormurali@gmail.com
Michael J Smith
Dennis A Revicki
Lesley-Ann Miller
Suresh Madhavan
Gerry Hobbs

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preference-based measures of health (PBMH) provide 'preference' or 'utility' weights that enable the calculation of QALYs for the economic evaluations of interventions. The Diabetes Utility Index (DUI) was developed as a brief, self-administered, diabetes mellitus-specific PBMH that can efficiently estimate patient-derived health state utilities. To describe the development of the valuation function for the DUI, and to report the validation results of the valuation function. Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) was used as the framework to develop a valuation function for the DUI. Twenty of 768 possible health states of the DUI classified as anchor states, single-attribute level states including corner states, and marker states were selected and described for preference elicitation interviews. Visual analogue scale and standard gamble (SG) exercises were used to measure preferences from individuals with diabetes recruited from primary care and community settings in and around Morgantown, WV, USA for the 20 health states defined by combinations of DUI attributes and severity levels. Data collected in the interviews were used to develop a valuation function that calculates utilities for the DUI health states and calculates attribute-level utilities. A validation survey of the valuation function was conducted in collaboration with the West Virginia University (WVU) Diabetes Institute. A total of 100 individuals with diabetes were interviewed and their preferences for various DUI health states measured. From data generated in the interviews, a DUI valuation function was developed on a scale where 1.00 = perfect health (PH) and 0.00 = the all worse 'pits' state, and adjusted to yield utilities on the conventional scale 1.00 = PH and 0.00 = dead. A total of 396 patients with diabetes who received care at WVU clinics completed a DUI mail validation survey (response rate = 33%). Clinical data consisting of International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition, diagnosis codes and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values for the respondents were merged with their responses to the DUI. The utilities calculated by the scoring function of the DUI compared favourably to cardinal SG utilities for three DUI health states for which both assessments were available. The DUI utility function slightly underestimated actual SG utilities for mild and moderate health states (mean absolute difference = 0.05). There was a small but significant correlation between DUI utility scores and average past year HbA(1c) values (r = -0.30; p < 0.001). Respondents with two or more complications had significantly lower DUI utilities than those with no complications (p < 0.001) or one complication (p = 0.015). Insulin users had significantly lower DUI utilities than non-users (p < 0.001), and those with HbA(1c) values <7% had significantly higher DUI utilities than those with HbA(1c) values of >or=7% (p < 0.001). No significant association was found between DUI scores and age or sex. These results show evidence of the feasibility and validity of the DUI. Further research is suggested to demonstrate the generalizability of these findings, to study the responsiveness of the DUI, and to examine the clinical meaningfulness of DUI change scores.

Indexed as

Health Status IndicatorsValue of LifeDiabetes MellitusFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHealth SurveysHemoglobinuriaHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPatient PreferenceQuality-Adjusted Life YearsSeverity of Illness IndexGlycated Hemoglobin

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.