Estimating quality-adjusted life years from patient-reported visual functioning

Eye (Basingstoke)

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 1295-1301

  Browne, C ^a   Brazier, J ^b   Carlton, J ^b   Alavi, Y ^c   Jofre Bonet, M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^d CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

EQ 5D; mapping; QALYs; quality of life; SF 6D; vision

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; EQ 5D QUESTIONNAIRE; FEMALE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE VISUAL FUNCTION QUESTIONNAIRE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUESTIONNAIRE; SF 6D QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM; VISION; VISUAL ACUITY; VISUAL FIELD;

EID: 84867498608     PISSN: 0950222X     EISSN: 14765454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/eye.2012.137     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Sherwood MB, Garcia-Siekavizza A, Meltzer MI, Hebert A, Burns AF, McGorray S. Glaucoma's impact on quality of life and its relation to clinical indicators. A pilot study. Ophthalmology 1998; 105(3): 561-566.
2. Wilson MR, Coleman AL, Yu F, Bing EG, Sasaki IF, Berlin K et al. Functional status and well- being in patients with glaucoma as measured by the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 questionnaire. Ophthalmology 1998; 105(11): 2112-2116.
3. Torrance GW, Thomas WH, Sackett DL. A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. Health Serv Res 1972; 7(2): 118-133.
4. Von Nuemann J, Morgenstern O. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press: New Jersey, USA, 1944.
5. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16(3): 199-208.
6. Brazier J, Usherwood T, Harper R, Thomas K. Deriving a preference based single index measure for health from the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1115-1129.
7. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Applications of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 1982; 30: 1043-1069.
8. Drummond MS, Torrance M, O'Brien G, Stoddart BG. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford University Press: New York, USA, 2005.
9. Excellence NIoC. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. UK National Health Service: London, 2008.
10. (NICE) NIfHaCE. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. (NICE) NIfHaCE: London, 2008.
11. Alavi YJ-B, Bunce M, Wormald C, Viswanathan R, Foster A, Hitchings AR. Developing an algorithm to convert routine measures of vision into utility values for Glaucoma. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2011; 18(5): 233-243.
12. Ware Jr. JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473-483.
13. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21(2): 271-292.
14. Brazier J, Roberts J, Tsuchiya A, Busschbach J. A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups. Health Econ 2004; 13(9): 873-884.
15. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Gutierrez PR, Spritzer K, Berry S, Hays RD. Development of the 25- item national eye institute visual function questionnaire. Arch Ophthalmol 2001; 119(7): 1050-1058.
16. Ferris FL III, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I. New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 1982; 94(1): 91-96.
17. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M. Visual acuities 'hand motion' and 'counting fingers' can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006; 47(3): 1236-1240.
18. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring vontrast sensitivity. Clin Vision Sci 1988; 2(3): 187.
19. Crabb DP, Viswanathan AC. Integrated visual fields: A new approach to measuring the binocular field of view and visual disability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2005; 243(3): 210-216.
20. Haley M (ed). The Field Analyzer Primer. Humphrey: San Leandro, CA, 1987.
21. Koutsoyiannis A. Theory of Econometrics. The Macmillan Press Ltd, Location: Hong Kong, 1977.
22. Green W. Econometric Analysis. 4th edn. Prentice Hall: NJ, 2000.
23. Powell J. Least absolute deviations estimation for the censored regression model. J Econom 1984; 25(30): 303-325.
24. Sandy R. Statistics for Business and Economics. 1st edn. McGraw-Hill International Editions: New York, USA, 1990.
25. Wolfe F, Michaud K,Wallenstein G. Scale characteristics and mapping accuracy of the US EQ-5D, UK EQ-5D, and SF-6D in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2010; 37(8): 1615-1625.
26. Meads DM, Browne C, Edlin R, Kharroubi S, Round J, Wright J, McCabe C. Uncertainty in Health State Utility Mapping - a Systematic Review 2011, AUHE Working Paper.
27. Payakachat N, Summers KH, Pleil AM, Murawski MM, Thomas J III, Jennings K et al. Predicting EQ-5D utility scores from the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Qual Life Res 2009; 18(7): 801-813.
28. Aspinall PA, Johnson ZK, Azuara-Blanco A, Montarzino A, Brice R, Vickers A. Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49(5): 1907-1915.
29. Kobelt G, Jonsson B, Bergstrom A, Chen E, Linden C, Alm A. Cost-effectiveness analysis in glaucoma: what drives utility? Results from a pilot study in Sweden. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2006; 84(3): 363-371.
30. Kind P, Hardman G, Macran S. UK Population Norms for EQ-5D. Venture for Health 1999. Economics Discussion Paper Series 172.
31. Brown MM, Brown GC, Sharma S, Garrett S. Evidencebased medicine, utilities, and quality of life. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 1999; 10(3): 221-226.
32. Espallargues M, Czoski-Murray CJ, Bansback NJ, Carlton J, Lewis GM, Hughes LA et al. The impact of age-related macular degeneration on health status utility values. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005; 46(11): 4016-4023.
33. Mantyjarvi M, Laitinen T. Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001; 27(2): 261-266.