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

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

“…The actual number of observations ranged from 3425 to 3945 and for paired comparisons (Table 2) from 3230 to 3640'' [34].…”

Section: Item 14: Final Sample Size(s)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The number of observations may be smaller than the total sample and may vary between models because of missing data. Published with kind permission from Elsevier [34] The MAPS Reporting Statement: Explanation and Elaboration…”

Section: Item 14: Final Sample Size(s)mentioning

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

show abstract

“…Only rarely was a major impact on the range of scores being predicted and goodness of fit. One example is the mapping between IBDQ to EQ-5D where R 2 increased from 0.45 to 0.69 after incorporating squared terms of dimension scores (Buxton, et al, 2007). Furthermore, some studies included additional variables, such as other clinical indicators (Grootendorst et al, 2007;Buxton et al, 2007) and demographic variables .…”

Section: Model Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One example is the mapping between IBDQ to EQ-5D where R 2 increased from 0.45 to 0.69 after incorporating squared terms of dimension scores (Buxton, et al, 2007). Furthermore, some studies included additional variables, such as other clinical indicators (Grootendorst et al, 2007;Buxton et al, 2007) and demographic variables . Only 4 studies used dimension scores or responses as the target measure and in all cases these were the 5 dimensions of the EQ-5D (Tsuchiya et al, 2002;Edlin et al, 2002, Gray et al, 20042006).…”

Section: Model Specificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

HHe ea al lt th h E Ec co on no om mi ic cs s a an nd d D De ec ci is si io on n S Sc ci ie en nc ce e D Di is sc cu us ss si io on n P Pa ap pe er r S Se er ri ie es s No. 08/02A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) from non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures INTRODUCTIONA common approach to assessing the outcomes of health care is to obtain patient reported descriptions of health status across various dimensions and then to apply a standardised numerical scoring system. There are many different measures of health, including several hundred condition specific measures of health designed for use in specific medical conditions or groups of condition (Spilker et al, 1990), and a number of generic measures designed to cover the core dimensions of health that are relevant across all medical conditions. Health measures can also be distinguished in terms of whether they generate a profile of dimension scores or a single index and if they produce a single index, whether or not the index has been derived using simple summation of item scores or by using preference weights obtained from patients or the general public (known as preference-based measures or multi-attribute utility scales).Patient reported measures of health have become widely used in clinical trials as primary or secondary outcomes. There is little agreement on which specific instruments should be used for this purpose. For assessing clinical efficacy, there is disagreement on whether to use a generic or condition specific measure, and between condition specific measures there is often disagreement amongst clinical researchers on the most appropriate instrument. As a result clinical trials around the world often use different measures for the same patient groups. This presents a substantial barrier to the synthesis of evidence.Preference-based measures of health are necessary to generate the health state utility values required to calculate QALYs for assessing the cost effectiveness of interventions.These are usually based on generic instruments (e.g. EQ-5D) that permit comparisons between patient groups, though there are examples of condition specific preference-based measures . Even for assessing clinical effectiveness, it could be argued that a preference-based index is necessary to deal with trade-offs made between outcomes. There has been a debate amongst health economists about the most appropriate preference-based generic measure to use in cost effectiveness analyses. Whilst the EQ-5D is the most widely applied in recent years (Brooks et al, 1996), the HUI3 (Feeny et al, 3 2002), QWB (Kaplan and Andersen, 1988), SF-6D (Brazier et al, 2002) and others continue to be used. However, different preference-based measures have been shown to generate different values on the same sample of patients (Marra et al, 2005; Feeny et al, 2004;Barton et al, 2004). Furthermore, many key clinical trials on the efficacy of new interventions do not have a generic measure and the recent FDA Guidance on using Patient Rep...

show abstract

“…Uzun yıllar boyunca yapılmış olan etkinlik çalışmalarından elde edilmiş olan hastalığa-özgü ölçümlerin, günümüzde ekonomik analizler için yeniden kullanılabileceği düşünülmüştür. Bu noktadan yola çıkarak, kanser, koroner kalp hastalığı, Parkinson hastalığı ve inflamatuvar barsak hastalığı gibi çok farklı hastalık gruplarında, hastalığa-özgü ölçeklerin EQ-5D ile eşleştirilmesi için çeşitli modeller geliştirilmiştir (17)(18)(19)(20)(21). Yakın zaman içerisinde, KİS hastalıklarından diz osteoartriti için de benzer çalışmalar yapılmıştır.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Fizik Tedavi Programlarının Ağrı ve Hayat Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi

...

2012

Tftr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖzetAmaç: Kas iskelet sistemi (KİS) hastalıkları bireylerin yaşam kalitesini olumsuz etkileyen ve sağlık harcamalarına ciddi yük oluşturan önemli bir sağlık sorunudur. Bu çalışmanın amacı çeşitli KİS patolojilerinin tedavisinde kullanılan fizik tedavi programlarının ağrı ve hayat kalitesi üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmaya boyun, omuz, diz ve bel bölgesine yönelik fizik tedavi programı uygulanmış olan toplam 160 hasta dahil edildi. Hastaların yaşı, cinsiyeti, hastalara önerilen fizik tedavi modalitelerinin ve egzersizin türü kaydedildi. Tedavi öncesi ve sonrası hastalardan ağrı ve hayat kalitelerindeki değişimi değerlendirmek amacıyla sırasıyla vizüel analog skalayı (VAS) ve EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) ölçeğini yanıtlamaları istendi. Bulgular: Hastaların ortalama yaşı 51,8±13,2 (21-85) yıldı. Yüzeyel ısıtıcılardan hotpack, derin ısıtıcılardan ultrason, analjezik akımlardan ise TENS en sık kullanılan modalitelerdi. Hastalara en sık güçlendirme egzersizleri, çok daha az sıklıkla eklem hareket açıklığı ve germe egzersizleri önerilmişti. Hastaların tedavi öncesi VAS skoru 6,7±2,1 (0-10) ve EQ-5D skoru 0,30±0,34 (-0,43-0,90) iken fizik tedavi sonrasında bu değerler sırasıyla 4,3±2,5 (0-10) ve 0,59±0,28 (-0,69-1,00) olarak belirlendi. Kadınlarda erkeklere oranla ağrı şiddeti tedavi öncesi (p=0,022) ve sonrası (p<0,001) daha yüksek, hayat kalitesi daha kötüydü (p<0,001). Her iki cinste de fizik tedavi uygulamaları ile istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düzeyde ağrıda azalma ve hayat kalitesinde düzelme sağlandığı gözlendi (p<0,001). Sonuç: KİS hastalıklarının tedavisinde sıklıkla uygulanmakta olan fizik tedavi programları hastaların bölgesel ağrılarını azalmakta ve hayat kalitelerini arttırmaktadır. Türk Fiz T›p Re hab Derg 2012;58:99-102. Anah tar Ke li me ler: Fizik tedavi, ağrı, hayat kalitesi, EQ-5D Sum maryObjective: Musculoskeletal system (MSS) diseases comprise a major health problem with negative impact on quality of life of individuals and considerable burden on health care systems. The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of physical therapy programs used in the treatment of various MSS disorders on the patients' pain and quality of life. Materials and Methods: 160 patients, who participated in a physical therapy program for their neck, shoulder, knee or low back pain, were included in the study. The patients' age, sex, and the type of the prescribed physical therapy modality and exercise were recorded. Before and after the treatment, in order to evaluate the change in the severity of pain and quality of life, the patients were respectively asked to complete the visual analog scale (VAS) and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) measure. Results: The mean age of the patients was 51.8±13.2 (21-85) years. The most commonly used modalities were hot packs among superficial heaters, ultrasound among deep heaters and TENS among analgesic currents. Whereas the most frequently prescribed exercises were strengthening exercises, stretching and range of motion exercises were rarely recommended. The average pre-treatment...

show abstract

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

Abstract: Given the strength, consistency, and predictable characteristics of the relationships, the algorithms appear to provide valuable and valid methods to estimate utilities from IBDQ scores (but not CDAI) in trials of Crohn's disease patients that have collected IBDQ scores but not utilities.

Cited by 77 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures

Fizik Tedavi Programlarının Ağrı ve Hayat Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About