Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37340446›Full record

SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2023

Characteristics of health-state utilities used in cost-effectiveness analyses: a systematic review of published studies in Asia.

Zhihao Yang, Xueyun Zeng, Weidong Huang, Qingqing Chai, Angela Zhao, Ling-Hsiang Chuang, Bin Wu, Nan Luo

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Testing culturally relevant EQ-5D-5L bolt-ons for the Chinese general population: first quantitative phase of a mixed methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  3. Identifying and developing culturally relevant EQ-5D-5L bolt-on items for Chinese population: qualitative phase of a mixed-methods study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Zhihao Yang *Health Services Management Department, Guizhou Medical University, Gui'an, China.
Xueyun Zeng *Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Weidong HuangSchool of Health Management, Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China. weidong218@126.com.
Qingqing ChaiDepartment of Pharmacy, School of Medicine, Huangpu Branch, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Angela ZhaoAnalysis Group, Boston, MA, USA.
Ling-Hsiang ChuangDepartment of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Bin WuSchool of Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Nan LuoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. ephln@nus.edu.sg.
Harbin Medical University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNAnalysis Group (United States) · USGuiyang Medical University · CNNational University Health System · SGUmeå University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred form of economic evaluation in many countries. As one of the key data inputs in cost-utility models, health state utility (HSU) has a crucial impact on CUA results. In the past decades, health technology assessment has been expanding rapidly in Asia, yet research examining the methodology and process used to generate cost-effectiveness evidence is scarce. The aim of this study was to examine the reporting of the characteristics of HSU data used in CUAs in Asia and how the characteristics have changed over time.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify published CUA studies targeting Asian populations. Information was extracted for both the general characteristics of selected studies and the characteristics of reported HSU data. For each HSU value identified, we extracted data for four key characteristics, including 1) estimation method; 2) source of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data; 3) source of preference data; and 4) sample size. The percentage of nonreporting was calculated and compared over two time periods (1990-2010 vs 2011-2020).

resultsA total of 789 studies were included and 4,052 HSUs were identified. Of these HSUs, 3,351 (82.7%) were from published literature and 656 (16.2%) were from unpublished empirical data. Overall, the characteristics of HSU data were not reported in more than 80% of the studies. Of HSUs whose characteristics were reported, most of them were estimated using the EQ-5D (55.7%), Asian HRQoL data (91.9%), and Asian health preferences (87.7%); 45.7% of the HSUs was estimated with a sample of 100 or more individuals. All four characteristics showed improvements after 2010.

conclusionOver the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in CUA studies targeting Asian populations. However, HSU's characteristics were not reported in most of the CUA studies, making it difficult to evaluate the quality and appropriateness of the HSUs used in those cost-effectiveness studies.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeResearch DesignAsiaCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAsiaCost-effectiveness analysisHealth-state utilityQALY

Identifiers

PMID37340446
PMCPMC10283288
OpenAlexW4381430828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.