Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26133293›Full record

ReviewPharmacoEconomics2015

Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values?

Tessa Peasgood, John Brazier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 13 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A systematic review of health state utility values and psychometric performance of generic preference-based instruments for children and adolescents with mental health problems.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. The impact of loneliness and social isolation on health state utility values: a systematic literature review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. The impact of acute pneumococcal disease on health state utility values: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Health state utility values measured using the EuroQol 5-dimensions questionnaire in adults with chronic hepatitis C: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Pooled it
  13. A systematic review of utility values in children with cerebral palsy.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Pooled it
  14. Quality of life impacts associated with comorbid insomnia and depression in adult population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  15. Analyzing quality of life among people with opioid use disorder from the National Institute on Drug Abuse Data Share initiative: implications for decision making.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. A Meta-Regression Analysis of Utility Weights for Breast Cancer: The Power of Patients' Experience.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Health state utility values of high prevalence mental disorders in Australia: results from the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    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

2 authors.

Tessa PeasgoodSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. T.Peasgood@sheffield.ac.uk.
John BrazierSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of published articles report estimates from meta-analysis or meta-regression on health state utility values (HSUVs), with a view to providing input into decision-analytic models. Pooling HSUVs is problematic because of the fact that different valuation methods and different preference-based measures (PBMs) can generate different values on exactly the same clinical health state. Existing meta-analyses of HSUVs are characterised by high levels of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions have identified significant (and substantial) impacts arising from the elicitation method used. The use of meta-regression with few utility values and inclusion criteria that extend beyond the required utility value has not helped. There is the potential to explore greater use of mapping between different PBMs and valuation methods prior to data synthesis, which could support greater use of pooling values. Researchers wishing to populate decision-analytic models have a responsibility to incorporate all high-quality evidence available. In relation to HSUVs, greater understanding of the differences between different methods and greater consistency of methodology is required before this can be achieved.

Indexed as

Health StatusMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, EconomicCost-Benefit AnalysisDecision MakingHumans

Identifiers

PMID26133293
PMCPMC4607715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.