SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095108.
  • 2
    Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21: 27192.
  • 3
    Kopec JA, Willison KD. A comparative review of four preference-weighted measures of health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56: 31725.
  • 4
    Bryan S, Longworth L. Measuring health-related utility: why the disparity between EQ-5D and SF-6D? Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6: 25360.
  • 5
    Corti MC, Rigon C. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: prevalence, risk factors and functional impact [review]. Aging Clin Exp Res 2003; 15: 35963.
  • 6
    Xie F, Li SC, Thumboo J. Do health-related quality-of-life domains and items in knee and hip osteoarthritis vary in importance across social-cultural contexts? A qualitative systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2005; 34: 793804.
  • 7
    Xie F, Li SC, Fong KY, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, et al. What health domains and items are important to patients with knee osteoarthritis? A focus group study in a multiethnic urban Asian population. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14: 22430.
  • 8
    Brazier JE, Harper R, Munro J, Walters SJ, Snaith ML. Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38: 8707.
  • 9
    Conner-Spady B, Estey A, Arnett G, Ness K, McGurran J, Bear R, et al, and the Steering Committee of the Western Canada Waiting List Project. Prioritization of patients on waiting lists for hip and knee replacement: validation of a priority criteria tool. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004; 20: 50915.
  • 10
    Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999; 38: 80713.
  • 11
    Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement: a comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 8018.
  • 12
    Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin 2001; 17: 1906.
  • 13
    Turner AP, Barlow JH, Heathcote-Elliott C. Long term health impact of playing professional football in the United Kingdom. Br J Sports Med 2000; 34: 3326.
  • 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: 87384.
  • 15
    Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing short form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res 2004; 13: 165970.
  • 16
    Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: 1035.
  • 17
    Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care 2003; 41: 791801.
  • 18
    Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, Metz LM, Murray TJ, Stadnyk KJ. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76: 5863.
  • 19
    Gerard K, Nicholson T, Mullee M, Mehta R, Roderick P. EQ-5D versus SF-6D in an older, chronically ill patient group. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2004; 3: 91102.
  • 20
    Longworth L, Bryan S. An empirical comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D in liver transplant patients. Health Econ 2003; 12: 10617.
  • 21
    Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, Shojania K, Offer R, Brazier JE, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HUI2, HUI3, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60: 157182.
  • 22
    McDonough CM, Grove MR, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, Hilibrand AS, Tosteson AN. Comparison of EQ-5D, HUI, and SF-36–derived societal health state values among Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) participants. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 132132.
  • 23
    Pickard AS, Johnson JA, Feeny DH. Responsiveness of generic health-related quality of life measures in stroke. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 20719.
  • 24
    Stavem K, Froland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 97180.
  • 25
    Van Stel HF, Buskens E. Comparison of the SF-6D and the EQ-5D in patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006; 4: 20. URL: http://www.hqlo.com/content/4/1/20.
  • 26
    Petrou S, Hockley C. An investigation into the empirical validity of the EQ-5D and SF-6D based on hypothetical preferences in a general population. Health Econ 2005; 14: 116989.
  • 27
    Tsuchiya A, Brazier J, Roberts J. Comparison of valuation methods used to generate the EQ-5D and the SF-6D value sets. J Health Econ 2006; 25: 33446.
  • 28
    Drummond M, Maetzel A, Gabriel S, March L. Towards a reference case for use in future economic evaluations of interventions in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl 2003; 68: 2630.
  • 29
    Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, Koh DR, Ng SC, Yoon KH, et al. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in Chinese-speaking patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2003; 32: 68590.
  • 30
    Luo N, Chew LH, Fong KY, Koh DR, Ng SC, Yoon KH, et al. Validity and reliability of the EQ-5D self-report questionnaire in English-speaking Asian patients with rheumatic diseases in Singapore. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 8792.
  • 31
    Wee HL, Cheung YB, Fong KY, Luo N, Machin D, Thumboo J. Are English- and Chinese-language versions of the SF-6D equivalent? A comparison from a population-based study. Clin Ther 2004; 26: 113748.
  • 32
    Barr S, Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Chalmers A, Ford PM, Kean WF, et al. A comparative study of signal versus aggregate methods of outcome measurement based on the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol 1994; 21: 210612.
  • 33
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 183340.
  • 34
    Lequesne M. Indices of severity and disease activity for osteoarthritis [review]. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1991; 20: 4854.
  • 35
    Lequesne MG. The algofunctional indices for hip and knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 77981.
  • 36
    Juniper EF, Gordon HG, Roman J. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: SpilkerB, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1996. p. 4956.
  • 37
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 30710.
  • 38
    Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
  • 39
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies [review]. Stat Methods Med Res 1999; 8: 13560.
  • 40
    Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 152332.
  • 41
    Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. Valuing health-related quality of life: a review of health state valuation techniques. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17: 15165.
  • 42
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. J Health Econ 1996; 15: 20931.
  • 43
    Schackman BR, Gold HT, Stone PW, Neumann PJ. How often do sensitivity analyses for economic parameters change cost-utility analysis conclusions? Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22: 293300.
  • 44
    Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ. Towards a HUI-fication of the EuroQol descriptive system: should the EuroQol descriptive system be extended from three to five levels? A universal methodological strategy with an empirical pilot. The 21st Plenary Meeting of the EuroQol Group; 2004. p. 518.