Developing the health state classification system for a condition-specific preference-based measure for patients with myasthenia gravis

References

• Brazier J. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Tsuchiya A. Preference-based condition-specific measures of health: What happens to cross programme comparability? Health Econ. 2010;19(2):125–129.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King MT, Costa DSJ, Aaronson NK, et al. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):625–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Powell P, Mukuria C, et al. Deriving a preference-based measure for people with Duchenne muscular dystrophy from the DMD-QoL. Value Health. 2021;24(10):1499–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong D, Chong MK, Wu Y, et al. Gender differences in quality of life among patients with myasthenia gravis in China. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):296.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carr AS, Cardwell CR, McCarron PO, et al. A systematic review of population based epidemiological studies in myasthenia gravis. BMC Neurol. 2010;10:46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilhus NE. Myasthenia gravis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(26):2570–2581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns TM, Grouse CK, Wolfe GI, et al. The MG-QOL15 for following the health-related quality of life of patients with myasthenia gravis. Muscle Nerve. 2011;43(1):14–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boldingh MI, Dekker L, Maniaol AH, et al. An up-date on health-related quality of life in myasthenia gravis – results from population based cohorts. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):115.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lee I, Kaminski HJ, Xin H, et al. Gender and quality of life in myasthenia gravis patients from the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Registry. Muscle Nerve. 2018;58(1):90–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns TM, Sadjadi R, Utsugisawa K, et al. International clinimetric evaluation of the MG-QOL15, resulting in slight revision and subsequent validation of the MG-QOL15r. Muscle Nerve. 2016;54(6):1015–1022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowen D, Brazier J, Ara R, et al. The role of condition-specific preference-based measures in health technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(Suppl. 1):33–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kennedy-Martin M, Slaap B, Herdman M, et al. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost–utility analysis? A review of National Health Technology Assessment (HTA) guidelines. Eur J Health Econ. 2020;21(8):1245–1257.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier JE, Rowen D, Mavranezouli I, et al. Developing and testing methods for deriving preference-based measures of health from condition-specific measures (and other patient-based measures of outcome). Health Technol Assess. 2012;16(32):1–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. J Emerg Prim Heal Care. 2010;8:1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7(2):191–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revelle W, Rocklin T. Very simple structure: an alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1979;14(4):403–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976;41(3):321–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Carlton J, et al. Criteria for item selection for a preference-based measure for use in economic evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2021;30(5):1425–1432.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, et al. Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care. 2007;45(5 Suppl. 1):S22–S31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF. Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• van Der Ark L. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2007;20:1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natesan BP, Contractor AA, Weiss NH, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the posttrauma risky behaviors questionnaire: item response theory analyses. Assessment. 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Baker FB. The basics of item response theory using R. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Valdez JPM, Chu WKS. Examining the psychometric validity of the Five-Item Gratitude Questionnaire: an item response theory approach. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2018;38:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang T, Chen TT. An investigation of the performance of the generalized S-X2 item-fit index for polytomous IRT models. ACT Research Report Series, 2007-1. ACT Inc.; 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Armstrong RA. When to use the Bonferroni correction. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2014;34(5):502–508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rupp AA, Zumbo BD. Understanding parameter invariance in unidimensional IRT models. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(1):63–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zumbo B. A handbook on the theory and methods of differential item functioning (DIF): logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Ottawa: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah (NJ); London: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• DiStefano C, Morgan GB. A comparison of diagonal weighted least squares robust estimation techniques for ordinal data. Struct Equ Model. 2014;21(3):425–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Young TA, Yang Y, Brazier JE, et al. The use of Rasch analysis in reducing a large condition-specific instrument for preference valuation: the case of moving from AQLQ to AQL-5D. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(1):195–210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu RH, Dong D, Luo N, et al. Investigating the added value of the EQ-5D-5L with two bolt-on items in patients with hemophilia. Front Med. 2021;8:707998.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggi L, Bernasconi P, D'Amico A, et al. Italian recommendations for diagnosis and management of congenital myasthenic syndromes. Neurol Sci. 2019;40(3):457–468.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidder AK, Detwiller KY, Price CPE, et al. Evaluating metrics of responsiveness using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(2):128–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar