Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32617890›Full record

SynthesisQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2020

Measurement properties of preference-based measures for economic evaluation in COPD: a systematic review.

Ava Mehdipour, Marla K Beauchamp, Joshua Wald, Nicole Peters, Ayse Kuspinar

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The EORTC QLU-C10D is a valid cancer-specific preference-based measure for cost-utility and health technology assessment in the Netherlands.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Ava MehdipourSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7984-9127
Marla K BeauchampSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2843-388X
Joshua WaldFirestone Institute for Respiratory Health, 50 Charlton Ave. E., Hamilton, ON, L8N 4A6, Canada.
Nicole PetersSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada.
Ayse KuspinarSchool of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University, 1400 Main St. W., Hamilton, ON, L8S 1C7, Canada. kuspinaa@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3886-0407

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePreference-based measures can provide measurements of health-related quality of life and be utilized for cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether generic preference-based measures are reliable, valid, and responsive in COPD.

methodsA systematic review was performed using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Three databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Studies were included if the sample represented individuals with COPD and the aim was to evaluate one or more psychometric properties or the interpretability of generic preference-based measures.

resultsSix hundred and sixty-seven abstracts were screened, 65 full-text articles were reviewed and 24 articles met the inclusion criteria. Measures which emerged from the search were the EQ-5D, the SF-6D, the Quality of Well-being scale, the 15D, and the Health Utilities Index 3. Evidence for the test-retest reliability of these measures was limited. Construct validity of the measures was well supported with correlations with generic health profiles being 0.37-0.68, and correlations with COPD-specific health profiles being 0.53-0.75. Evidence for known-groups validity of these measures was poor and data on responsiveness were mixed.

conclusionGeneric preference-based measures' sensitivity to change and ability to discriminate between different disease severities in COPD was poorly supported. Future research may consider examining the development of COPD-specific preference-based measures that may allow for a more accurate detection of change and discrimination among disease severities to facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluations.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansPsychometricsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEconomic evaluationHealth-related quality of lifePsychometric properties

Identifiers

PMID32617890

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.