ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Some comments on mapping from disease-specific to generic health-related quality-of-life scales.
Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Social Participation of Burn Survivors and the General Population in Work and Employment: A Life Impact Burn Recovery Evaluation (LIBRE) Profile Study.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
An article by Lu et al. in this issue of Value in Health addresses the mapping of treatment or group differences in disease-specific measures (DSMs) of health-related quality of life onto differences in generic health-related quality-of-life scores, with special emphasis on how the mapping is affected by the reliability of the DSM. In the proposed mapping, a factor analytic model defines a conversion factor between the scores as the ratio of factor loadings. Hence, the mapping applies to convert true underlying scales and has desirable properties facilitating the alignment of instruments and understanding their relationship in a coherent manner. It is important to note, however, that when DSM means or differences in mean DSMs are estimated, their mapping is still of a measurement error-prone predictor, and the correct conversion coefficient is the true mapping multiplied by the reliability of the DSM in the relevant sample. In addition, the proposed strategy for estimating the factor analytic mapping in practice requires assumptions that may not hold. We discuss these assumptions and how they may be the reason we obtain disparate estimates of the mapping factor in an application of the proposed methods to groups of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.