Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27005466›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2016

Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients' valuations?

Reiner Leidl, Bernd Schweikert, Harry Hahmann, Juergen M Steinacker, Peter Reitmeir

Abstract readClinical StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. People in states worse than dead according to the EQ-5D UK value set: would they rather be dead?Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Reiner LeidlInstitute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Postfach 1129, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany. leidl@helmholtz-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7115-7510
Bernd SchweikertInstitute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Postfach 1129, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany.
Harry HahmannWaldburg-Zeil Kliniken - Klinik Schwabenland, Waldburgallee 3-5, 88316, Isny-Neutrauchburg, Germany.
Juergen M SteinackerDivision of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Dept. Internal Medicine II, Ulm University Medical Centre, Frauensteige 6, 89075, Ulm, Germany.
Peter ReitmeirInstitute for Health Economics and Health Care Management, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Postfach 1129, 85758, Neuherberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of life as an endpoint in a clinical study may be sensitive to the value set used to derive a single score. Focusing on patients' actual valuations in a clinical study, we compare different value sets for the EQ-5D-3L and assess how well they reproduce patients' reported results.

methodsA clinical study comparing inpatient (n = 98) and outpatient (n = 47) rehabilitation of patients after an acute coronary event is re-analyzed. Value sets include: 1. Given health states and time-trade-off valuation (GHS-TTO) rendering economic utilities; 2. Experienced health states and valuation by visual analog scale (EHS-VAS). Valuations are compared with patient-reported VAS rating. Accuracy is assessed by mean absolute error (MAE) and by Pearson's correlation ρ. External validity is tested by correlation with established MacNew global scores. Drivers of differences between value sets and VAS are analyzed using repeated measures regression.

resultsEHS-VAS had smaller MAEs and higher ρ in all patients and in the inpatient group, and correlated best with MacNew global score. Quality-adjusted survival was more accurately reflected by EHS-VAS. Younger, better educated patients reported lower VAS at admission than the EHS-based value set. EHS-based estimates were mostly able to reproduce patient-reported valuation. Economic utility measurement is conceptually different, produced results less strongly related to patients' reports, and resulted in about 20 % longer quality-adjusted survival.

conclusionDecision makers should take into account the impact of choosing value sets on effectiveness results. For transferring the results of heart rehabilitation patients from another country or from another valuation method, the EHS-based value set offers a promising estimation option for those decision makers who prioritize patient-reported valuation. Yet, EHS-based estimates may not fully reflect patient-reported VAS in all situations.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAcute Coronary SyndromeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsQuality of LifeRegression AnalysisSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenDecision utilityEQ-5D-3LExperience-based valuationPatient benefitPatient-reported outcome

Identifiers

PMID27005466
PMCPMC4802660

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.