Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29679315›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2018

Correction to: Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.

Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin

Abstract readPublished Erratum
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Remote and self-monitoring for pregnant women at risk of gestational hypertensive disorders: a cost-effectiveness analysis.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  3. Do we agree on health state outcomes? A review of measurement agreement between time-trade off and other utility measures.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Brendan MulhernCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, 1-59 Quay St, Haymarket, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. Brendan.mulhern@chere.uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-3656-8063
Yan FengOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Koonal ShahOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Mathieu F JanssenDepartment of Medical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Michael HerdmanOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.
Ben van HoutHealth Economics and Decision Science, School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent St, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Nancy DevlinOffice of Health Economics, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6QT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The article Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L Value Sets, written by Brendan Mulhern, Yan Feng, Koonal Shah, Mathieu F. Janssen, Michael Herdman, Ben van Hout, Nancy Devlin was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on February 23, 2018 without open access.

Identifiers

PMID29679315
PMCPMC5954051

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.