ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026
Comparing EQ-5D-5L and SF-6Dv2 utilities with QLU-C10D utilities in hematologic cancer patients.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the measurement properties between EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 and QLU-C10D utilities, and to assess the implications of their adoption in QALY estimation in hematologic cancer patients.
methodLongitudinal data of Chinese lymphoma and myeloma patients were adopted. Utility scores of the three instruments were calculated based on a variety of country-specific value sets. Their measurement properties including convergent validity, known-group validity, sensitivity, and responsiveness were compared. With-in group change in utilities derived from the instruments were also generated and compared.
resultsA total of 200 lymphoma and 139 myeloma patients were enrolled at baseline; and 78 and 89 of them were followed up, respectively. The three kinds of utilities showed similar convergent validity; but all had restricted known-group validity. All of them could identify meaningful changes in clinical status; while whether QLU-C10D utilities was more responsive and yielded larger utility change were closely related to the value sets adopted.
conclusionIt appears that the advantages of QLU-C10D over EQ-5D-5L/SF-6Dv2 were not so obvious, and it may not necessarily produce more QALY gains as well. The choice of utility value set played an important role in the two aspects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40781203What 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.