Mapping Studies to Estimate Health-State Utilities From Nonpreference-Based Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review on How Repeated Measurements are Taken Into Account
Value in Health, ISSN: 1098-3015, Vol: 26, Issue: 4, Page: 589-597
2023
- 1Citations
- 7Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- CrossRef1
- Captures7
- Readers7
Review Description
Mapping algorithms are developed using data sets containing patient responses to a preference-based questionnaire and another health-related quality-of-life questionnaire. When data sets include repeated measurements from the same individuals over time, the assumption of observations’ independence, required by standard models, is violated, and standard errors are underestimated. This review aimed to identify how studies deal with methodological challenges of repeated measurements, provide an overview of practice to date, and potential implications for future work. We conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, specialized databases, and previous systematic reviews. A data template was used to extract, among others, start and target instruments if the data set(s) used for estimation and validation had repeated measurements per patient, used regression techniques, and which (if any) adjustments were made for repeated measurements. We identified 278 publications developing at least 1 mapping algorithm. Of the 278 publications, 121 used a data set with repeated measurements, among which 92 used multiple time points for estimation, and 39 selected specific time points to have 1 observation per participant. A total of 36 studies did not account for repeated measurements. An adjustment was conducted using cluster-robust standard errors (21), random-effects models (30), generalized estimating equations (7), and other methods (7). The inconsistent use of methods to account for interdependent observations in the literature indicates that mapping guidelines should include recommendations on how to deal with repeated measurements, and journals should update their guidelines accordingly.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098301522046861; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.2477; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85141541470&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36371289; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1098301522046861; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2022.09.2477
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know