Methodological similarities and variations among EQ-5D-5L value set studies: a systematic review

References

• Devlin NJ, Brooks R. EQ-5D and the EuroQol group: past, present and future. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):127–137.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks R. Book title the EuroQol group after 25 years. 1st ed. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Parkin D, Devlin NJ. Assessing the performance of the EQ-VAS in the NHS PROMs programme. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):977–989.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1717–1727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selivanova A, Buskens E, Krabbe PFM. Head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L health values. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):715–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Feng Y, Shah K, et al. Comparing the UK EQ-5D-3L and English EQ-5D-5L value sets. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):699–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson AJ, Turner AJ. A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(6):575–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade LF, Ludwig K, Goni JMR, et al. A French value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(4):413–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Devlin NJ, Shah KK, et al. New methods for modelling EQ-5D-5L value sets: an application to English data. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):23–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Devlin NJ, van Hout B, et al. A program of methodological research to arrive at the new international EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2014;17(4):445–453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppe M, Rand-Hendriksen K, Shah K, et al. EuroQol protocols for time Trade-Off valuation of health outcomes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(10):993–1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolk E, Ludwig K, Rand K, et al. Overview, update, and lessons learned from the international EQ-5D-5L valuation work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L valuation protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(1):23–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsen JA, Lamu AN, Cairns J. In search of a common currency: a comparison of seven EQ-5D-5L value sets. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):39–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiroiwa T, Ikeda S, Noto S, et al. Comparison of value set based on DCE and/or TTO data: scoring for EQ-5D-5L health states in Japan. Value Health. 2016;19(5):648–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SM, et al. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of EQ-5D. Value in Health. 2016;19(4):343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roudijk B, Donders ART, Stalmeier PFM. Cultural values: can they explain differences in health utilities between countries? Med Decis Making. 2019;39(5):605–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Purba FD, Shafie AA, et al. Do health preferences differ among Asian populations? A comparison of EQ-5D-5L discrete choice experiments data from 11 Asian studies. Qual Life Res. 2022;364:2.
   Google Scholar
• Wang P, Liu GG, Jo MW, et al. Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states: a comparison of seven asian populations. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2019;19(4):445–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin N, Brazier J, Pickard AS, et al. 3L, 5L, what the L? A NICE conundrum. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):637–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PF, et al. A checklist for reporting valuation studies of multi-attribute utility-based instruments (CREATE). Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33(8):867–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Xie F, Gaebel K, Perampaladas K, et al. Comparing EQ-5D valuation studies: a systematic review and methodological reporting checklist. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(1):8–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikeda S, Shiroiwa T, Igarashi A, et al. Developing a Japanese version of the EQ-5D-5L value set. J Natl Inst Public Health. 2015;64(1):47–55.
   Google Scholar
• Yang F, Katumba KR, Roudijk B, et al. Developing the EQ-5D-5L value set for Uganda using the “lite” protocol. Pharmacoeconomics. 2022;40(3):309–321.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutierrez-Delgado C, Galindo-Suárez RM, Cruz-Santiago C, et al. EQ-5D-5L Health-State values for the mexican population. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(6):905–914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al Shabasy SA, Abbassi MM, Finch AP, et al. The EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study in Egypt. Pharmacoeconomics. 2021;39(5):549–561.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustovski F, Belizán M, Gibbons L, et al. Peruvian valuation of the EQ-5D-5L: a direct comparison of time trade-off and discrete choice experiments. Value Health. 2020;23(7):880–888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augustovski F, Rey-Ares L, Irazola V, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set based on Uruguayan population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(2):323–333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burström K, Teni FS, Gerdtham UG, et al. Experience-based Swedish TTO and VAS value sets for EQ-5D-5L health states. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(8):839–856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig BM, Rand K. Choice defines QALYs: a US valuation of the EQ-5D-5L. Med Care. 2018;56(6):529–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, et al. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ. 2018;27(1):7–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira PL, Antunes P, Ferreira LN, et al. A hybrid modelling approach for eliciting health state preferences: the Portuguese EQ-5D-5L value set. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(12):3163–3175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golicki D, Jakubczyk M, Graczyk K, et al. Valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states in Poland: the first EQ-VT-based study in Central and Eastern Europe. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(9):1165–1176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbins A, Barry L, Kelleher D, et al. Utility values for health states in Ireland: a value set for the EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(11):1345–1353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen CE, Sørensen SS, Gudex C, et al. The Danish EQ-5D-5L value set: a hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19(4):579–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim S-H, Ahn J, Ock M, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(7):1845–1852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leidl R, Reitmeir P. An experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany. Value Health. 2017;20(8):1150–1156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin HW, Li CI, Lin FJ, et al. Valuation of the EQ-5D-5L in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2018;13(12):e0209344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig K, Graf von der Schulenburg JM, Greiner W. German value set for the EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics. 2018;36(6):663–674.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Liu G, Li M, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D-5L value set for China. Value Health. 2017;20(4):662–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mai VQ, Sun S, Minh HV, et al. An EQ-5D-5L value set for Vietnam. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(7):1923–1933.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2018;18(5):551–558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickard AS, Law EH, Jiang R, et al. United States valuation of EQ-5D-5L health states using an international protocol. Value Health. 2019;22(8):931–941.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purba FD, Hunfeld JAM, Iskandarsyah A, et al. The Indonesian EQ-5D-5L value set. Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(11):1153–1165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos-Goñi JM, Craig BM, Oppe M, et al. Handling data quality issues to estimate the Spanish EQ-5D-5L value set using a hybrid interval regression approach. Value Health. 2018;21(5):596–604.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rencz F, Brodszky V, Gulácsi L, et al. Parallel valuation of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L by time Trade-Off in Hungary. Value Health. 2020;23(9):1235–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafie AA, Vasan Thakumar A, Lim CJ, et al. EQ-5D-5L valuation for the Malaysian population. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(5):715–725.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan T, Hansen P, Ombler F, et al. A new tool for creating personal and social EQ-5D-5L value sets, including valuing “dead”. Soc Sci Med. 2020;246:112707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welie AG, Gebretekle GB, Stolk E, et al. Valuing health state: an EQ-5D-5L value set for Ethiopians. Value Health Reg Issues. 2020;22:7–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wong ELY, Ramos-Goñi JM, Cheung AWL, et al. Assessing the use of a feedback module to model EQ-5D-5L health states values in Hong Kong. Patient. 2018;11(2):235–247.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, et al. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health. 2009;12(8):1194–1200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansback N, Brazier J, Tsuchiya A, et al. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values. J Health Econ. 2012;31(1):306–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulhern B, Norman R, Street DJ, et al. One method, many methodological choices: a structured review of Discrete-choice experiments for health state valuation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37(1):29–43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law EH, Pickard AS, Xie F, et al. Parallel valuation: a direct comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L societal value sets. Med Decis Making. 2018;38(8):968–982.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang Z, Luo N, Oppe M, et al. Toward a smaller design for EQ-5D-5L valuation studies. Value Health. 2019;22(11):1295–1302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadimitropoulos EA, Elbarazi I, Blair I, et al. An investigation of the feasibility and cultural appropriateness of stated preference methods to generate health state values in the United Arab Emirates. Value Health Reg Issues. 2015;7:34–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mahlich J, Dilokthornsakul P, Sruamsiri R, et al. Cultural beliefs, utility values, and health technology assessment. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2018;16:19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronsson M, Husberg M, Kalkan A, et al. Differences between hypothetical and experience-based value sets for EQ-5D used in Sweden: implications for decision makers. Scand J Public Health. 2015;43(8):848–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, et al. From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health. 2014;17(1):70–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar