This project was funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) as part of the MRC-NIHR methodology research programme (reference G0901486) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: There has been a rapid growth in recent years of available technologies for

ObjectiveThis review examines generic preference-based measures and their ability to reflect health-related quality of life in patients with visual disorders.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken to identify clinical studies of patients with visual disorders where health state utility values were measured and reported. Data were extracted to assess the validity and responsiveness of the measures. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken due to the heterogeneity between different studies.ResultsThere was considerable heterogeneity in the 31 studies identified in terms of patient characteristics, visual disorders, and outcomes reported. Vision loss was associated with a reduction in scores across the preference-based measure, but the evidence on validity and responsiveness was mixed. The EQ-5D health-related assessment instrument's performance differed according to condition, with poor performance in age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and diabetic retinopathy. The more limited evidence on the HUI-3 instrument found it performed best in differentiating between severity groups of patients with glaucoma, AMD, cataracts, and diabetic retinopathy. One study reported data on the SF-6D instrument and showed it was able to differentiate between patients with AMD.ConclusionsThe performance of the EQ-5D in visual disorders was mixed. The HUI-3 seemed to perform better in some conditions, but the evidence on this and SF-6D is limited. More head to head comparisons of these three measures are required. The new five-level version of EQ-5D may do better at the milder end of visual function.

No abstract

This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: nihredit@southampton.ac.ukThe full HTA archive is freely available to view online at http://www.hta.ac.uk/project/htapubs.asp. Print copies can be purchased from the individual report pages. 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 research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA programme findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'.For more information about the HTA programme please visit the website: http://www.hta.ac.uk/ this reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 09/22/21. The contractual start date was in July 2010. The draft report began editorial review in January 2012 and was accepted for publication in June 2012. 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 expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HTA programme or the Department of Health.