Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33839968›Full record

ReviewThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2021

Evaluating the conduct and application of health utility studies: a review of critical appraisal tools and reporting checklists.

Michael J Zoratti, A Simon Pickard, Peep F M Stalmeier, Daniel Ollendorf, Andrew Lloyd, Kelvin K W Chan, Don Husereau, John E Brazier, Murray Krahn, Mitchell Levine and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

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

  1. A systematic review of health economic evaluation quality assessment instruments for medical devices.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Health utilities used in oncology cost-utility analyses: a registry-based analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Informing evidence-based medicine for opioid use disorder using pharmacoeconomic studies.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors.

Michael J ZorattiDepartment of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
A Simon PickardDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, The University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Peep F M StalmeierHealth Evidence, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Daniel OllendorfCenter for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6016-8129
Andrew LloydAcaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd, London, UK.
Kelvin K W ChanSunnybrook Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Don HusereauSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
John E BrazierSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Murray KrahnToronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mitchell LevineDepartment of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Feng XieDepartment of Health Research Methodology, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. fengxie@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3454-6266
Health Utility Book (HUB) Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublished health utility studies are increasingly cited in cost-utility analyses to inform reimbursement decision-making. However, there is limited guidance for investigators looking to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of health utility studies or their applicability to decision contexts.

objectiveTo describe how health utility concepts are reflected in tools intended for use with the health economic literature, particularly with respect to the evaluation of methodological quality and context applicability.

methodsWe reviewed the critical appraisal and reporting tools described in a 2012 report published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), supplemented with a keyword search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, to identify existing tools which include health utility constructs. From these tools, a list of relevant items was compiled and grouped into domain categories based on the methodological or applicability aspect they were directed toward.

resultsOf the 24 tools we identified, 12 contained items relevant to the evaluation of health utilities. Sixty-five items were considered relevant to the evaluation of quality, while 44 were relevant to the evaluation of applicability. Items were arranged into four domains: health state descriptions; selection and description of respondents; elicitation and measurement methods; and other considerations.

conclusionAs key inputs to cost-utility analyses, health utilities have the potential to significantly impact estimates of cost-effectiveness. Existing tools contain only general items related to the conduct or use of health utility studies. There is a need to develop tools that systematically evaluate the methodological quality and applicability of health utility studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansUnited StatesChecklistCost utility analysisHealth utilityMethodology

Identifiers

PMID33839968

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.