Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31161585›Full record

ArticlePharmacoEconomics2019

Mapping the PedsQL™ onto the CHU9D: An Assessment of External Validity in a Large Community-Based Sample.

Christine Mpundu-Kaambwa, Gang Chen, Elisabeth Huynh, Remo Russo, Julie Ratcliffe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Mapping PedsQL™ scores to CHU9D utility weights for children with chronic conditions in a multi-ethnic and deprived metropolitan population.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Trial
  4. Mapping PedsQLQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020
    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.

Christine Mpundu-KaambwaInstitute for Choice, University of South Australia Business School, Level 3 Way Lee Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia. christine.mpundu-kaambwa@unisa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-8152-6068
Gang ChenCentre for Health Economics, Monash Business School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8385-5965
Elisabeth HuynhDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1855-3143
Remo RussoFaculty of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1960-0084
Julie RatcliffeInstitute for Choice, University of South Australia Business School, Level 3 Way Lee Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7365-1988

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMapping algorithms have been indicated as a second-best solution for estimating health state utilities for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years within cost-utility analysis when no generic preference-based measure is incorporated into the study. However, the predictive performance of these algorithms may be variable and hence it is important to assess their external validity before application in different settings.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the external validity and generalisability of existing mapping algorithms for predicting preference-based Child Health Utility 9D (CHU9D) utilities from non-preference-based Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) scores among children and adolescents living with or without disabilities or health conditions.

methodsFive existing mapping algorithms, three developed using data from an Australian community population and two using data from a UK population with one or more self-reported health conditions, were externally validated on data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (n = 6623). The predictive accuracy of each mapping algorithm was assessed using the mean absolute error (MAE) and the mean squared error (MSE).

resultsValues for the MAE (0.0741-0.2302) for all validations were within the range of published estimates. In general, across all ages, the algorithms amongst children and adolescents with disabilities/health conditions (Australia MAE: 0.2085-0.2302; UK MAE: 0.0854-0.1162) performed worse relative to those amongst children and adolescents without disabilities/health conditions (Australia MAE: 0.1424-0.1645; UK MAE: 0.0741-0.0931).

conclusionsThe published mapping algorithms have acceptable predictive accuracy as measured by MAE and MSE. The findings of this study indicate that the choice of the most appropriate mapping algorithm to apply may vary according to the population under consideration.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHealth Status IndicatorsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeAdolescentAustraliaChildChild HealthChildren with DisabilitiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSelf Report

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.