Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26324402›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2015

Improving Cross-Sector Comparisons: Going Beyond the Health-Related QALY.

John Brazier, Aki Tsuchiya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Exploring subjective constructions of quality of life in patients, carers and the healthy general public: a Q-methodological study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. On spillovers in economic evaluations: definition, mapping review and research agenda.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Expanding health technology assessment towards broader value: Ireland as a case study.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. NICE and the EQ-5D-5L: Ten Years Trouble.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022
    Article
  20. 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.

John BrazierSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. j.e.brazier@sheffield.ac.uk.
Aki TsuchiyaSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) has become a widely used measure of health outcomes for use in informing decision making in health technology assessment. However, there is growing recognition of outcomes beyond health within the health sector and in related sectors such as social care and public health. This paper presents the advantages and disadvantages of ten possible approaches covering extending the health-related QALY and using well-being and monetary-based methods, in order to address the problem of using multiple outcome measures to inform resource allocation within and between sectors.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality ImprovementFinancing, PersonalHealth SurveysHumansPersonal Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID26324402
PMCPMC4661222

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.