Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26235547›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2015

PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR STUDIES MAPPING ONTO PREFERENCE-BASED OUTCOME MEASURES: THE MAPS STATEMENT.

Stavros Petrou, Oliver Rivero-Arias, Helen Dakin, Louise Longworth, Mark Oppe, Robert Froud, Alastair Gray

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mapping from SIBDQ to EQ-5D-5L for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Trial
  2. Mapping the 12-item World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) onto the assessment of quality of life (AQoL)-4D utilities.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Stavros PetrouWarwick Clinical Trials Unit,Warwick Medical School,University of Warwicks.petrou@warwick.ac.uk.
Oliver Rivero-AriasNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit,Nuffield Department of Population Health,University of Oxford.
Helen DakinHealth Economics Research Centre,Nuffield Department of Population Health,University of Oxford.
Louise LongworthHealth Economics Research Group,Brunel University London.
Mark OppeEuroQol Research Foundation.
Robert FroudWarwick Clinical Trials Unit,Warwick Medical School,University of Warwick;Norges Helsehøyskole,Campus Kristiania.
Alastair GrayHealth Economics Research Centre,Nuffield Department of Population Health,University of Oxford.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0501681Medical Research Council G0700452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background"Mapping" onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies.

methodsIn the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. A two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies, and the biomedical journal editorial community was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list.

resultsFrom the initial de novo list of twenty-nine candidate items, a set of twenty-three essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorized within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion, and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document.

conclusionsIt is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency. and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by seven health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time.

Indexed as

ChecklistOutcome Assessment, Health CareResearch ReportTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalDelphi TechniqueMappingOutcome MeasuresPreferencesReporting

Identifiers

PMID26235547
PMCPMC4688917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.