ArticleMDM policy & practice
Sample Size and Model Prediction Accuracy in EQ-5D-5L Valuations Studies: Expected Out-of-Sample Accuracy Based on Resampling with Different Sample Sizes and Alternative Model Specifications.
Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health State Valuation: A Systematic Review of Progress and New Trends.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- The Influence of Perspective on the Valuation of the EQ-5D-Y-3L: A Comparison Using the OPUF Tool and a Discrete Choice Experiment.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Trial
- Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states from cancer patients' perspective: a feasibility study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024Article
- The EQ-5D-3L Valuation Study in Pakistan.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2023Article
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
Highlights: Increases in sample size beyond a minimum in the range of 300 to 500 respondents provide smaller gains in expected prediction accuracy than alternative modeling approaches.Constrained, nonlinear models; time tradeoff + discrete choice experiment hybrid modeling; and including a random intercept all improved the prediction accuracy of models estimating values for the EQ-5D-5L based on data from 3 different valuation studies.The tested modeling choices can compensate for smaller sample sizes.
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.