ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
In search of a 'pan-European value set'; application for EQ-5D-3L.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Child- versus adult-perspective composite time trade-off valuations for the EQ-5D-Y-3L: evidence from the Hungarian valuation study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Global Assessment of Health Utilities Associated with Pneumococcal Disease in Adults: Targeted Literature Reviews.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Review
- Psychometric and Molecular Profiling to Predict Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Pilot Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Article
- In varietate concordia - cluster analysis of EQ-5D-5L value sets in European Union countries.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The Effect of Insomnia on the Outcomes of Physical Therapy in Patients with Cervical and Lumbar Pain in Clinical Practice.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesCountry-specific value sets for the EQ-5D are available which reflect preferences for health states elicited from the general population. This allows the transformation of responses on EQ-5D to health state utility values. Only twelve European countries possess country-specific value sets and no value set reflecting the preferences of Europe exists. We aim to estimate a 'pan-European' value set for the EQ-5D-3L, reflecting the preferences for health states of the European population that could help to evaluate health care from the perspective of the European decision-maker.
methodsWe systematically assessed and compared the methodologies of available EQ-5D-3L time trade-off (TTO) value sets from twelve European countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and UK. Using their published coefficients, a dataset with utility values for all 243 health states was simulated. Different modelling techniques and model specifications including interaction terms were tested. Model selection was based on goodness-of-fit criteria. We also explored results with application of population size weights.
resultsMethodological, procedural and analytical characteristics of the included EQ-5D-3L valuation studies were quite comparable. An OLS based model was the preferred model to represent European preferences. Weighting with population size made little difference.
conclusionsEQ-5D-3L valuation studies were considered of sufficient comparability to form the basis for a new 'pan-European' value set. The method used allows for an easy update when new national value sets become available.
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.