A utility analysis correlation with visual acuity: Methodologies and vision in the better and poorer eyes

International Ophthalmology

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 123-127

  Brown, Melissa M ^a,b   Brown, Gary C ^a,b   Sharma, Sanjay ^c   Smith, Andrew F ^b   Landy, Jennifer ^a  

^a Ctr Evidence Based Hlth Care Econ   (United States)

^b WILLS EYE HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Correlations; Standard gamble; Time tradeoff; Utility values; Visual acuity

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PREVALENCE; STANDARD; TIME; VISION; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; VISUAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; VITREORETINOPATHY;

AGED; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; VISION DISORDERS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 17744402685     PISSN: 01655701     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021171000838     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Wang JJ, Mitchell P, Smith W. Vision and low self-rated health: The Blue Mountains Eye Study. Invest Ophthalmol 2000; 41: 49-54.
2. Lee P, Smith JP, Kingston R. The relationship of self-rated vision and hearing to functional status and well-being among seniors 70 years and older. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 127: 447-452.
3. Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang G, Munoz B, Schein OD, Fried LP, West SK. The association of multiple visual impairments with self-reported visual disability: SEE project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001; 42: 64-72.
4. Redelmeier DA, Detsky AS. A clinician's guide to utility measurement. Med Decis Making 1995; 22: 271-280.
5. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. A review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1-30.
6. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Garrett S. Evidence-based medicine, utilities, and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1999; 10: 221-226.
7. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Health care in the 21st century. Evidence-based medicine, patient preference-based quality and cost-effectiveness. Quality Management in Health Care 2000; 19: 23-31.
8. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Quality and cost-effectiveness in health care: A unique approach. J Ophthalmic Nursing & Technology 2000; Jan-Feb: 26-30.
9. Brown GC. Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1999; 92: 474-511.
10. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J. Utility values associated with age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 2000; 118: 47-51.
11. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Kistler J, Brown H. Utility values associated with blindness in an adult population. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 327-331.
12. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Shah G. Utility values and diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 1999; 128: 324-330.
13. Nease RF, Whitcup SM, Ellwein LB, Fox G, Littenberg B. Utility-based estimates of the relative morbidity of visual impairment and angina. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 2000; 7: 169-185
14. Linder M, Chang TS, Scott IU, Hay D, Chambers K, Sibley LM, Weis E. Validity of the visual function index (VF-14) in patients with retinal disease. Arch Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 1611-1616.
15. Bass EB, Wills S, Scott IU, Javitt JC, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Steinberg EP. Preference values for visual states in patients planning to undergo cataract surgery. Med Decis Making 1997; 17: 324-330.
16. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD, Javitt JC, Sharkey P, Cassard SD, et al. The VF-14. An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 1994; 112: 630-638.
17. Westheimer G. Scaling of visual acuity measurements. Arch Ophthalmol 1979; 97: 327-330.
18. Rosser DA, Laidlow PA, Murdoch IE. The development of a "reduced logMAR" visual acuity for use in routine clinical practice. Br J Ophthalmol 2001; 85: 432-436.
19. Norusis MJ. SPSS 9.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1999, pp. 349-371.
20. Rubin GS, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, West SK. Monocular versus binocular visual acuity as measures of vision impairment and predictors of visual disability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2000; 41: 3327-3334.
21. Cagenello R, Arditi A, Halpern DL. Binocular enhancement of visual acuity. J Opt Soc Am A 1993; 10: 1841-1848.
22. Mosley MJ, Jones HS. Visual acuity: Calculating appropriate averages. Acta Ophthalmol 1993; 71: 296-300.
23. Guyant GH. A taxonomy of health status instruments. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 1188-1190.
24. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health-related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622-629.
25. Hollands H, Lam M, Pater J, Albiani D, Brown GC, Brown MM, Cruess AF, Sharma S. Reliability of the time trade-off technique of utility assessment in patients with retinal disease. Can J Ophthalmol 2001; 36: 202-209.
26. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics, 5th edn., United States, Duxbury Thomson Learning, 2000, pp. 562-567.
27. Smith A, Brown GC. Understanding cost-effectiveness: A detailed review. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 54: 794-798.
28. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S, Busbee, Brown H. Incremental cost-effectiveness of laser photocoagulation for choroidal neovascularization associated with histoplasmosis. Retina 2000; 20: 331-337.
29. Brown GC, Brown MM, Sharma S. Incremental cost-effectiveness of laser therapy for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization. Ophthalmology 2000; 107: 1374-1380
30. Wakker P, Stiggelbout A. Explaining distortions in utility elicitation through the rank-dependent model for risky choices. Med Decis Making 1995; 15: 180-186.
31. Read JL, Quinn RJ, Berwick DM, Fineberg HV, Weinstein MC. Preferences for health outcomes. Comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis Making 1984; 4: 315-329.