ArticlePharmacoEconomics2019
Mapping the PedsQL™ onto the CHU9D: An Assessment of External Validity in a Large Community-Based Sample.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Home-testing devices for diagnosing obstructive sleep apnoea hypopnoea syndrome - a systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2023Trial
- Mapping PedsQLQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
31161585What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.