SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/TAP_Methods.pdf[Accessed November 2, 2007.
  • 2
    Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: DrumondM, McGuireA, eds. Economics Evaluation in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
  • 3
    Dolan P. Modelling valuation for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997;35:35163.
  • 4
    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.
  • 5
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989;27:S21732.
  • 6
    Brazier JE, Kolotkin RL, Crosby RD, Williams GR. Estimating a preference-based single index for the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life (IWQOL-Lite) Instrument from the SF-6D. Value Health 2004;7:4908.
  • 7
    Tsuchiya A, Brazier JE, McColl E, Parkin D. Deriving preference-based single indices from non-preference based condition-specific instruments: converting AQLQ into EQ5D indices. Sheffield Health Economics Group Discussion Paper Series 02/1, University of Sheffield, 2002.
  • 8
    Brennan DS, Spencer AJ. Mapping oral health related quality of life to generic health state values. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:96106.
  • 9
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ C-30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:36576.
  • 10
    Bottomley A, Aaronson NK. International perspective on health-related quality-of-life research in cancer clinical trials: the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer experience. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:50826.
  • 11
    EuroQol© Group. EQ-5D User Guide. Rotterdam: EuroQol Group, 2000.
  • 12
    Brooks R, EuroQol Group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;3:5372.
  • 13
    Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C, et al. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 1999;3:9.
  • 14
    Shenfine J, McNamee P, Steen N, et al. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial of the cost-effectiveness of palliative therapies for patients with oesophageal cancer. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:5.
  • 15
    Veall MR, Zimmermann KF. Pseudo-R2 measures for some common limited. Dependent variable models. J Econ Surv 1996;10:24159.
  • 16
    Prescott RJ, Kunkler IH, King CC, et al. PRIME: a randomised controlled trial of post-operative radiotherapy following breast conserving surgery in a minimum risk older population. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:31.
  • 17
    Marra CA, Woolcott JC, Kopec JA, et al. A comparison of generic, indirect utility measures (the HU12, HU13, SF-6D, and the EQ-5D) and disease-specific instruments (the RAQoL and the HAQ) in rheumatoid arthritis. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:1571782.