ArticleJournal of pediatrics. Clinical practice2025
Health State Utility Values in Children and Adolescents with Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To (1) provide a comprehensive summary of the methods used to obtain health state utility values (HSUVs) from children and adolescents with disabilities (CAD), (2) describe the administration and psychometric properties of these methods in children and adolescents with disabilities, and (3) report summary statistics for HSUVs obtained from each method. Study design: English-language studies from MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsychInfo, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, EconLit, and Embase were searched from inception to November 2024. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Studies were included if they used direct or indirect methods to measure HSUVs, reported utilities and/or psychometric properties of these measures, and involved CAD aged 0-19 years. Two reviewers independently extracted study details including sample descriptors, instruments used, and summary statistics. Studies quality was assessed using a novel tool derived from 3 validated checklists. Results: Of the 3541 screened articles, 31 met inclusion criteria. Only 2 studies used direct methods, such as time trade-off, visual analog scale, and standard gamble, whereas 29 employed generic measures (eg, EuroQol 5 Dimensions, Health Utilities Index 3) with diverse preference elicitation methods. Excessive dependence on proxy respondents was noted, and psychometric properties of generic measures were mixed. Conclusions: Inconsistent HSUVs reporting and limited data availability are common. Reported HSUV summary statistics may be inaccurate if methodologies are unsuitable for the population. This review emphasizes the need for validated instruments to assess HSUVs in CAD.
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.