Health state classification systems: How comparable are our cost-effectiveness ratios?

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 26, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 223-225

  Stiggelbout, Anne M ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTILIPEMIC AGENT;

AGE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CHILDHOOD CANCER; COGNITIVE DEFECT; COMORBIDITY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; EDITORIAL; FERTILITY; GENDER; HEALTH STATUS; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MORTALITY; PAIN; SELF CARE; SHORT FORM 36; STROKE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS;

EID: 33646563730     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: 1552681X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X06288686     Document Type: Editorial

References (16)

1. Fryback DG. A US valuation of the EQ-5D. Med Care. 2005;43:199-200.
2. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203-20.
3. Gold MR, Patrick DL, Torrance GW, et al. Identifying and valuing outcomes. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. p 82-134.
4. The EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199-208.
5. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index Mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40:113-28.
6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271-92.
7. Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ. 2006;25:334-46.
8. Connor-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41:791-801.
9. Oostenbrink R, Moll HA, Essink-Bot ML. The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55:791-9.
10. Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1571-82.
11. O'Brien BJ, Spath M, Blackhouse G, Severens JL, Dorian P, Brazier J. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index. Health Econ. 2003;12:975-81.
12. McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson ANA. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36-derived societal health state values among spine patient outcomes research trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:1321-32.
13. Winkelmayer WC, Benner JS, Glynn RJ, et al. Assessing health state utilities in elderly patients at cardiovascular risk. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:247-254.
14. Avorn J, Benner J, Ford I, et al. Measuring the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering drugs in the elderly: the outcomes research and economic analysis components of the PROSPER trial. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:757-73.
15. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW. Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics. 1995;7:490-502.
16. Revicki DA, Leidy NK, Brennan-Diemer F, Sorensen S, Togias A. Integrating patient preferences into health outcomes assessment: the multiattribute Asthma Symptom Utility Index. Chest. 1999;114:998-1007.