ArticlePloS one2026
Choice and impact of EQ-5D-5L value set in cost-utility analyses alongside multinational trials: Insights from PREFERABLE-EFFECT and CONVINCE.
Article in PloS one, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMultinational clinical trials are increasingly common in the European Economic Area, yet no guideline exists on which EQ-5D value set(s) should be used for health economic evaluations alongside multinational trials. Either a single value set or country-specific value sets can be applied, and previous studies have shown that the choice of value set can impact the estimated utility scores. For the EQ-5D-5L, the impact on European pooled cost-utility analyses has not been established. This study evaluates the impact of EQ-5D-5L value sets on cost-utility outcomes in two multinational trials.
methodsData from two multinational randomized controlled trials were used: (i) supervised exercise compared to usual care for patients with metastatic breast cancer (PREFERABLE-EFFECT), (ii) hemodiafiltration compared to hemodialysis for patients with kidney failure (CONVINCE). EQ-5D-5L was assessed at baseline and during follow-up. Utility scores and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with the country-specific value set for each participant, and with the value set of each included country. The probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated using bootstrapping.
resultsMean assigned utility scores per year alive ranged between 0.762 and 0.889 for PREFERABLE-EFFECT, and 0.673 and 0.806 for CONVINCE. The difference in utility scores is largest when participants report low quality of life. Estimated QALY gains ranged between 0.013 and 0.020 for PREFERABLE-EFFECT and 0.045 and 0.058 for CONVINCE. The maximum difference in probability of cost-effectiveness between the value sets was Δ8.3% at €80,000/QALY in PREFERABLE-EFFECT, and Δ11.1% at €40,000/QALY for CONVINCE.
conclusionsChoice of value set led to substantial variation in absolute utility scores and QALYs, which may influence cost-utility outcomes. This impact could be greater when an intervention prevents or aids recovery of health conditions associated with low quality of life, or results in large mortality differences. Scenario analyses using multiple value sets should be conducted for multinational trials.
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.