References
- Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21.
- Brazier J, Deverill M, Green C. A review of the use of health status measures in economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(3):174–184.
- Torrance GW. Toward a utility theory foundation for health status index models. Health Serv Res. 1976;11(4):349–369.
- Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1–30.
- Torrance GW, Feeny D, Furlong W. Visual analog scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis Making. 2001;21(4):329–334.
- Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system. Med Care. 2002;40(2):113–128.
- EuroQol Group. EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16(3):199–208.
- Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). 2013 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/resources/guide-to-the-methods-of-technology-appraisal-2013-pdf-2007975843781.
- Input data. In: guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare. 2016 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://tools.ispor.org/PEguidelines/source/Netherlands_Guideline_for_economic_evaluations_in_healthcare.pdf.
- PBAC Guidelines website.[Internet]. Canberra: Department of Health. 2016 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://pbac.pbs.gov.au/.
- Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 4th ed. Ottawa: CADTH. 2017 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines_for_the_economic_evaluation_of_health_technologiescanada_4th_ed.pdf.
- Thavorncharoensap M. Health outcome measurement. In: editors, Chaikledkaew U, Teerawattananon Y. Thai national health technology assessment guidelines. 2nd ed. Nonthaburi: Watcharin PP; 2013:74–88.
- Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement of utility. J Med Assoc Thai. 2014;97 Suppl 5:S43–49.
- Hernandez Alava M, Wailoo A, Grimm S, et al. EQ-5D-5L versus EQ-5D-3L: the impact on cost effectiveness in the United Kingdom. Value Health. 2018;21(1):49–56.
- Yang F, Devlin N, Luo N. Cost-utility analysis using EQ-5D-5L data: does how the utilities are derived matter? Value Health. 2019;22(1):45–49.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L valuation set for England (updated November 2008). 2018 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: http://rees-france.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Position-statement-on-use-of-the-EQ-5D-5L.pdf.
- Turner N, Campbell J, Peters TJ, et al. A comparison of four different approaches to measuring health utility in depressed patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):81.
- Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health status using VAS and TTO: what lies behind the numbers? Soc Sci Med. 1997;45(8):1289–1297.
- Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Wong E, et al. The standard gamble showed better construct validity than the time trade-off. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(10):1029–1033.
- Pan CW, Zhang RY, Luo N, et al. How the EQ-5D utilities are derived matters in Chinese diabetes patients: a comparison based on different EQ-5D scoring functions for China. Qual Life Res. 2000;29(11):3087–3094.
- Martin AJ, Glasziou PP, Simes RJ, et al. A comparison of standard gamble, time trade-off, and adjusted time trade-off scores. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16(1):137–147.
- Lamers LM, Stalmeier PF, Krabbe PF, et al. Inconsistencies in TTO and VAS values for EQ-5D health states. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(2):173–181.
- Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. Standard gamble, time trade-off and rating scale: experimental results on the ranking properties of QALYs. J Health Econ. 1997;16(2):155–175.
- Bleichrodt H. A new explanation for the difference between time trade-off utilities and standard gamble utilities. Health Econ. 2002;11(5):447–456.
- Arnold D, Girling A, Stevens A, et al. Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b2688.
- Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, et al. Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 1999;8(4):303–310.
- Lidgren M, Wilking N, Jonsson B, et al. Health related quality of life in different states of breast cancer. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(6):1073–1081.
- Rautalin M, Farkkila N, Sintonen H, et al. Health-related quality of life in different states of breast cancer - comparing different instruments. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(5):622–628.
- Yousefi M, Safari H, Akbari Sari A, et al. Assessing the performance of direct and indirect utility eliciting methods in patients with colorectal cancer: EQ-5D-5L versus C-TTO. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2019;19(4):259–270.
- Tongsiri S, Cairns J. Estimating population-based values for EQ-5D health states in Thailand. Value Health. 2011;14(8):1142–1145.
- Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M, Ramos-Goñi JM, et al., The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Thailand. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 18(5): 551–558. 2018.
- Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.
- gco.iarc.fr [Internet]. Lyon: Cancer today-IARC. 2018 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/home.
- Euroqol.org [Internet]. Rotterdam: EQ-5D. 2018 [cited 2020 Sept 1]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides/.
- Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(6):675–697.
- 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.
- Pattanaphesaj J, Thavorncharoensap M. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to EQ-5D-3L in the Thai diabetes patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):14.
- Thompson AJ, Turner AJ. A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. Pharmacoeconomics. 2020;38(6):575–591.
- 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.
- Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.
- Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135–160.
- Francq BG, Govaerts B. How to regress and predict in a Bland-Altman plot? Review and contribution based on tolerance intervals and correlated-errors-in-variables models. Stat Med. 2016;35(14):2328–2358.
- Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5(1):70.
- Zhu J, Yan XX, Liu CC, et al. Comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L performance in common cancers: suggestions for instrument choosing. Qual Life Res. 2020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02636-w.
- Craig BM, Rand K. Choice defines QALYs: a US valuation of the EQ-5D-5L. Med Care. 2018;56(6):529–536.
- Jia YX, Cui FQ, Li L, et al. Comparison between the EQ-5D-5L and the EQ-5D-3L in patients with hepatitis B. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2355–2363.
- Craig BM, Pickard AS, Lubetkin EI. Health problems are more common, but less severe when measured using newer EQ-5D versions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(1):93–99.
- Lang HC, Chuang L, Shun SC, et al., Validation of EQ-5D in patients with cervical cancer in Taiwan. Support Care Cancer. 18(10): 1279–1286. 2010.
- Ó Céilleachair A, O’Mahony JF, O’Connor M, et al., Health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D in the prevention, screening and management of cervical disease: a systematic review. Qual Life Res. 26(11): 2885–2897. 2017.
- 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.
- Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–376.
- Arifin B, Purba FD, Herman H, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L: studying measurement and scores in Indonesian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):22.
- Janssen MF, Birnie E, Haagsma JA, et al. Comparing the standard EQ-5D three-level system with a five-level version. Value Health. 2008;11(2):275–284.