Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting

Value in Health

Volumn 7, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 602-609

  Hatoum, Hind T ^a   Brazier, John E ^b   Akhras, Kasem S ^c  

^a Hind T Hatoum and Company   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c Sanofi Synthelabo Inc   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trial; Coronary artery disease; Discriminant validity; Health state preference

Indexed keywords

XEMILOFIBAN;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 6344226481     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.75011.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Commonwealth Department of Health. Housing and Community Service Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on the Submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1992.
2. Ministry of Health (Ontario). Ontario Guidelines for the Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Products. Toronto: Ministry of Health, 1994.
3. Taylor R. Using health outcomes data to inform decision-making: government agency perspective. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19(Suppl. 2):S33-8.
4. Weeks J. Taking quality of life into account in health economic analyses. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1996;20:23-7.
5. Weinstein MC, Siegel JE, Gold MR, et al. For the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA 1996;276:1253-8.
6. Feeny D, Torrance GW, Furlong JW, et al. Multi-attribute and single attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 System. Med Care 2002;40:113-28.
7. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE. The MOS-36 item short-form health survey: II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247-63.
8. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short-form general health survey. Med Care 1988;26:724-35.
9. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute. Boston: New England Medical Center, 1993.
10. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health. J Health Econ 2002;21:311-20.
11. Brazier JE, Deverill M, Green C. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999;4:174-84.
12. O'Neill WW, Serruys P, Knudtson M, et al. Long-term treatment with a platelet glycoprotein-receptor antagonist after percutaneous coronary revascularization. EXCITE trial investigators evaluation of oral Xemilofiban in controlling thrombotic events. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1316-24.
13. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
14. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1994.
15. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1115-28.
16. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report. Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, WP 98-11. Hamilton: University of McMaster, 1998.
17. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 1982; 66(Suppl. III):S56-66.
18. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, et al. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status measurement instruments. Med Care 1992;30:917-25.
19. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:419-23.
20. Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors. Med Decis Making 1993;13:89-102.
21. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997;17:1-9.
22. Nichol MB, Sengupta N, Globe DR. Evaluating quality adjusted life years: estimation of the health utility index from the SF-36. Med Decis Making 2001;21:105-12.
23. Bosch JL, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the Short-Form 36 Health Survey and Health Utilities Index before and after treatment of patients with intermittent claudication. Med Decis Making 2002;22:403-9.
24. Conner-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.
25. Hawthorne G, Richardson J, Day NA. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Ann Med 2001;33:358-70.
26. Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, et al. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. Am J Public Health 1981;71:620-5.
27. Torrance GW, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7:503-20.