ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2023
Mapping the EQ-5D-5L from the Spanish national health survey functional disability scale through Bayesian networks.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2023. 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.
- Mapping to estimate health state utility: a systematic review of development and limitations.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping Health State Utility from Disease-Specific Measures in Spinal Muscular Atrophy and Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- Improving the value of population health data for health policy and decision-making using machine learning algorithms in EQ-5D-5L index estimation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predicting Health Utilities Using Health Administrative Data: Leveraging Survey-linked Health Administrative Data from Ontario, Canada.Applied health economics and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePreference-based measures are valuable tools for evaluating therapeutic interventions and for cost-effectiveness studies. Mapping procedures are useful when it is not possible to collect these kind of measures. The objective of this study was to evaluate which mapping method is the most appropriate to estimate the EQ-5D-5L index from the Spanish National Health Survey functional disability scale.
methodsThe sample, formed by 5708 older adults (aged 65 years or older), was drawn from the Spanish National Health Survey ("Encuesta Nacional de Salud en España," ENSE in Spanish 2011-2012). The predictions of EQ-5D-5L index were performed with response mapping using Bayesian network (BN), ordered logit (Ologit), and multinomial logistic (ML). The following direct methods were used: ordinary least squares (OLS) and Tobit regression. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), absolute error (MAE), mean squared error (MSE), and root-mean squared error (RMSE) were calculated to compare all models. The predictions of response models were obtained through the expected value method.
resultsBN model showed the highest ICC (0.756, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.733-0.777) and lowest MAE (0.110, 95% CI 0.104-0.115). OLS was the model with worse accuracy results with lowest ICC (0.621, 95% CI 0.553-0.681) and highest MAE (0.159, 95%CI: 0.145-0.173).
conclusionIndirect mapping methods (BN, Ologit, and ML) had a better accuracy than the direct methods. The response mapping approach provides a robust method to estimate EQ-5D-5L scores from the functional disability scale.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36735174What 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.