Validity of utilities of patients with esophageal cancer

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 113-118

  Stalmeier, Peep F M ^a   De Boer, Angela G E M ^b,c   Sprangers, Mirjam A G ^b   De Haes, Hanneke C J M ^b,c   Van Lanschot, Jan J B ^b,c  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Esophageal cancer; Utility assessment

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; HEALTH CARE; SURGERY; TUMORS;

STANDARD GAMBLE (SG); SURGICAL RESECTION; VISUAL ANALOGUE SCALE (VAS); WORSE THAN DEAD (WTD);

PATIENT MONITORING;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DEATH; DENMARK; ESOPHAGUS CANCER; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; STANDARD GAMBLE UTILITY; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 13644263273     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462305050142     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. de Boer AGEM, Stalmeier PFM, Sprangers MAG, et al. Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: Patients' utilities and treatment preferences. Br J Cancer. 2002;86:851-857.
2. Hulscher JBF, Van Sandick JW, De Boer AGEM, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia: Results of a randomized study. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1662-1669.
3. Krabbe PFM, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ. The comparability and reliability of five health-state valuation methods. Soc Sci Med. 1997;11:1641-1652.
4. O'Leary JF, Fairclough DL, Jankowski MK, et al. Comparison of time-tradeoff utilities and rating-scale values of cancer-patients and their relatives-evidence for a possible plateau relationship. Med Decis Making. 1995,15:132-137.
5. Postulart D, Adang EMM. Response shift and adaptation in chronically ill patients. Med Decis Making. 2002;20:186-193.
6. Rutten-van Molken MP, Bakker CH, van Doorslaer EK, et al. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care. 1995;33:922-937.
7. Souchek J, Stacks JR, Brody B, et al. A trial for comparing methods for eliciting treatment preferences from men with advanced prostate cancer. Med Care. 2000;38:1040-1050.
8. Torrance GW. Social preferences for health states: An empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 1976;10:129-136.
9. Tsevat J, Goldman L, Lamas GA, et al. Functional status versus utilities in survivors of myocardial infarction. Med Care. 1991;29:1153-1159.
10. Tsevat J, Sherman SN, McElwee JA, et al. The will to live among HIV-infected patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:194-198.
11. Yi M, Mrus J, Britto M, et al. The relationship between visual analogue scale scores and utilities for current health. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:526.