ArticleThe patient2014
Sourcing quality-of-life weights obtained from previous studies: theory and reality in Korea.
Article in The patient, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Review of Utility Measurement Methods Used in Pharmacoeconomic Submissions to HIRA in South Korea: Methodological Consistency and Areas for Improvement.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Review
- A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients' Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality-of-life weights obtained in previous studies are frequently used in cost-utility analyses. The purpose of this study is to describe how the values obtained in previous studies are incorporated into the industry submissions requesting listing at the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI), focusing on the issues discussed in theoretical studies and national guidelines.
methodsThe industry submissions requesting listing at the Korean NHI from January 2007 until December 2009 were evaluated by two independent researchers at the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). Specifically, we observed the methods that were used to pool, predict joint health state utilities, and retain consistency within submissions in terms of the issues discussed in methodological research papers and recommendations from national guidelines.
resultsMore than half of the submissions used QALY as an outcome measure, and most of these submissions were sourced from prior studies. Heterogeneous methodologies were frequently used within a submission, with the inconsistent use of upper and lower anchors being prevalent. Assumptions behind measuring joint health state utilities or pooling multiple values for single health states were omitted in all submissions. Most national guidelines were rather vague regarding how to predict joint health states, how to select the best available value, how to maintain consistency within a submission, and how to generalize values obtained from prior studies.
conclusionsPreviously-generated values were commonly sourced, but this practice was frequently related to inconsistencies within and among submissions. Attention should be paid to the consistency and transparency of the value, especially if the value is sourced from prior studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24578251What 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.