Predicting SF-6D utility scores from the oswestry disability index and numeric rating scales for back and leg pain

Spine

Volumn 34, Issue 19, 2009, Pages 2085-2089

  Carreon, Leah Y ^a   Glassman, Steven D ^a   McDonough, Christine M ^b,c,d   Rampersaud, Raja ^e   Berven, Sigurd ^f   Shainline, Michael ^g  

^a NORTON LEATHERMAN SPINE CENTER   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^d DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g PhDx Systems   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost utility analysis; Oswestry Disability Index; Outcome measurement; SF 6D; Utilities

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BACK PAIN NUMERIC RATING SCALE; BACKACHE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST UTILITY ANALYSIS; DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEG PAIN; LEG PAIN NUMERIC RATING SCALE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OSWESTRY DISABILITY INDEX; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SF-6D;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; BACK PAIN; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEG; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 70349150579     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a93ea6     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bloom BS. Use of formal benefit/cost evaluations in health system decision making. Am J Manag Care 2004;10:329-335
2. Dickson M, Hurst J, Jacobzone S. Survey of Pharmacoeconomic Assessment Activity in Eleven Countries. France: OECD; 2003.
3. Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. "Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health." Med Care 1996;34:163-177
4. Kaplan RM. Health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:382-392
5. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208.
6. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271-292
7. 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;40:113-128
8. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research: a proposal for standardized use. Spine 1998;23:2003-2013
9. Buxton MJ, Lacey LA, Feagan BG, et al. Mapping from disease-specific measures to utility: an analysis of the relationships between the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire and Crohn's Disease Activity Index in Crohn's disease and measures of utility. Value Health 2007;10:214-220
10. Brazier J, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, et al. Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 2004;7:490-498
11. Erickson P. Evaluation of a population-based measure of quality of life: the Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex). Qual Life Res 1998;7:101-114
12. Franks P, Lubetkin EI, Gold MR, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003;41:1277-1283
13. Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, et al. Predicting Quality of Wellbeing scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med Decis Making 1997;17:1-9.
14. Gold M, Franks P, Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation: the predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care 1996;34:163-177
15. Gold MR, Franks P, McCoy KI, et al. Toward consistency in cost-utility analyses: using national measures to create condition-specific values [comment]. Med Care 1998;36:778-792
16. Gray AM, Rivero-Arias O, Clarke PM. Estimating the association between SF-12 responses and EQ-5D utility values by response mapping. Med Decis Making 2006;26:18-29.
17. Hollingworth W, Deyo RA, Sullivan SD, et al. The practicality and validity of directly elicited and SF-36 derived health state preferences in patients with low back pain. Health Econ 2002;11:71-85.
18. Kind P, Macran S. Eliciting social preference weights for functional assessment of cancer therapy-lung health states. Pharmacoeconomics 2005;23:1143-1153
19. Lawrence WF, Fleishman JA. Predicting EuroQoL EQ-5D preference scores from the SF-12 Health Survey in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2004;24:160-169
20. Lee TA, Hollingworth W, Sullivan SD. Comparison of directly elicited preferences to preferences derived from the SF-36 in adults with asthma. Med Decis Making 2003;23:323-334
21. Lenert LA, Sherbourne CD, Sugar C, et al. Estimation of utilities for the effects of depression from the SF-12. Med Care 2000;38:763-770
22. Lenert LA, Sturley AP, Rapaport MH, et al. Public preferences for health states with schizophrenia and a mapping function to estimate utilities from positive and negative symptom scale scores. Schizophr Res 2004;71:155-165
23. Longworth L, Buxton M, Sculpher M, et al. Estimating utility data from clinical indicators for patients with stable angina. Eur J Health Econ 2005;6:347-353
24. Lundberg I, Johannesson M, Isacson D, et al. The relationship between health state utilities and the SF-12 in a general population. Med Decis Making 1999;12:128-140
25. Sanderson K, Andrews G, Corry J, et al. Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health status. Qual Life Res 2004;13:1255-1264
26. Sengupta N, Nichol MB,Wu J, et al. Mapping the SF-12 to the HUI3 and VAS in a managed care population. Med Care 2004;42:927-937
27. Sherbourne C, Unutzer J, Schoenbaum M, et al. Can utility-weighted health-related quality-of-life estimates capture health effects of quality improvement for depression? Med Care 2001;39:1246-1259
28. Shmueli A. Subjective health status and health values in the general population. Med Decis Making 1999;19:122-127
29. Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Mapping the EQ-5D Index from the SF-12: US general population preferences in a nationally representative sample. Med Decis Making 2006;26:401-409
30. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SK. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summaries Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute; 1994.
31. Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980;66:271-273
32. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R. Thomas Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF36 Health Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1115-1128
33. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. Correlates of improvement in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic pain. J Consult Clin Psychol 1994;62:172-179
34. Taylor SJ, Taylor AE, Foy MA, et al. Responsiveness of common outcome measures for patients with low back pain. Spine 1999;24:1805-1812
35. Walsh TL, Hanscom B, Lurie JD, et al. Is a condition specific instrument for patients with low back pain/leg symptoms really necessary? The responsiveness of the Oswestry Disability Index, MODEMS, and the SF-36. Spine 2003;28:607-615
36. Mortimer D, Segal L. Comparing the incomparable? A systematic review of competing techniques for converting descriptive measures of health status into QALY weights. Med Decis Making 2008;28:66-89.
37. Fritz JM, Irrgang JJ. A comparison of a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire and the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. Phys Ther 2001;81:776-788