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

Payakachat, Nalin; Summers, Kent H.; Pleil, Andreas M.; Murawski, Matthew M.; Thomas, Joseph; Jennings, Kristofer; Anderson, James G.

doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9499-6

Cited by 52 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…111 However, none of the published mapping studies was based on a population with uveitis and, considering that the AG had access to the VFQ-25 and EQ-5D patient-level data at baseline from the HURON trial, 48 the AG decided to fit a new mapping model. The AG used the approach that produced the best fit according to Browne et al 112 (ordinary least squares) and noticed that the mapping resulted in similar coefficient values to those presented by Payakachat et al, 113 who used an alternative modelling method (censored least absolute deviation). The mapping was used for all of the analyses involving DEX, within the exploratory analyses comparing the interventions with current practice, as provided in the MUST trial, 57 and within a sensitivity analysis for ADA.…”

Section: Quality Of Lifementioning

confidence: 90%

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

Squires

Poku

Bermejo

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declared competing interests of authors: Fahd Quhill has received personal fees from Allergan for participation in medical education and training, and has participated in advisory boards given his clinical expertise in the role of steroids in diabetic macular oedema. He has also received support from Allergan to attend international conferences.Published November 2017 DOI: 10.3310/hta21680 This report should be referenced as follows: This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Technology Assessment journalReports are published in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HTA programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others. HTA programmeThe HTA programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care.The journal is indexed in NHS Evidence via its abstracts included in MEDLINE and its Technology Assessment Reports inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. HTA research is also an important source of evidence for National Screening Committee (NSC) policy decisions.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hta This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the HTA programme on behalf of NICE as project number 15/64/07. The protocol was agreed in June 2016. The assessment report began editorial review in December 2016 and was accepted for publication in May 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expre...

show abstract

Section: Quality Of Lifementioning

confidence: 90%

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

Squires

Poku

Bermejo

et al. 2017

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cross-validation process was then repeated 5 times with each of the 5 subsamples used exactly once as the validation data…. Out-of-sample validation was conducted by using the independent validation dataset that contains both the EQ-5D utility scores and the NEIVFQ 25 dimension scores…'' [29].…”

Section: Item 12: Validation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distributions of the 11 vision dimensions and the general health item of the NEI-VFQ 25 and the EQ-5D utility scores are shown in Fig. 2'' [29].…”

Section: Item 15: Descriptive Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The process of ''mapping'' is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. Objective The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement. Methods In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. Results From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation. Conclusions It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time. Each of the 23 items contained within the MAPS reporting statement is illustrated with an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature. In addition, a detailed explanation and elaboration is provided for each of the 23 reporting items.It is anticipated that the MAPS reporting statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies.

show abstract

“…This paper also used OLS, Tobit, and CLAD to estimate the EQ-5D. 27 They found their models to have heteroscedasticity and non-normality, and therefore, they rejected the OLS and Tobit models. They conclude that the CLAD estimates should be recommended for producing the EQ-5D when VFQ-25 data is only available.…”

Section: Eyementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Browne

Brazier

Carlton

et al. 2012

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Glaucoma is an important disease, the impacts of which on vision have been shown to have implications for patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The primary aim of this study is to estimate a mapping algorithm to predict EQ-5D and SF-6D utility values based on the vision-specific measure, the 25-item Visual Functioning Questionnaire (VFQ-25), as well as the clinical measures of visual function, that is, integrated visual field, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. Methods Ordinary least squares (OLS), Tobit, and censored least absolute deviations were compared using data taken from the Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, to assess mapping functions to predict the EQ-5D and SF-6D from the VFQ-25, and tests of visual function. These models were compared using root mean square error (RMSE), R 2 , and mean absolute error (MAE). Results OLS was the best-performing model of the three compared, as this produced the lowest RMSE and MAE, and the highest R 2 . Conclusions The models provided initial algorithms to convert the VFQ-25 to the EQ-5D and SF-6D. Further analysis would be needed to validate the models or algorithms.

show abstract

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

Abstract: The CLAD-short model is recommended for producing the EQ-5D utility scores when only the NEI-VFQ 25 data are available.

Cited by 52 publications

References 43 publications

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About