ArticleBMC research notes2019
Comparison of health state utility estimates from instrument-based and vignette-based methods: a case study in kidney disease.
Article in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- A Review of Utility Measurement Methods Used in Pharmacoeconomic Submissions to HIRA in South Korea: Methodological Consistency and Areas for Improvement.PharmacoEconomics · 2021Review
- Differences in the Selection of Health State Utility Values by Sponsorship in Published Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Preferences and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Related to Disease and Treatment Features for Patients with Hemophilia A in a Canadian General Population Sample.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
- Systematic review of utility values used in the pharmacoeconomic evaluations for schizophrenia: implications on cost-effectiveness results.Journal of market access & health policy · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe take advantage of a rare occurrence when two different studies report on the estimation of quality of life utilities for the same health states to assess convergence of the reported measures. Health state utilities are important inputs into health economic models that estimate the impact of new medical technologies using a common metric of health gain-the quality adjusted life-year.
resultsWe find low concordance between the two measures which is concerning in that this could have important ramifications for health care decision making based on estimated cost-effectiveness. We explore possible reasons for the discrepancy between the two measures and draw implications for the design of future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.