Use of visual analog scales in economic evaluation

References

• Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences-II: scaling methods. J. Clin. Epidemiol 42, 459–471 (1989).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ••Seminal review of different valuationtechniques.
   Google Scholar
• McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaire. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1987,1996).
   Google Scholar
• Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv. Res. 8, 228–245 (1973).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Anderson J. A general health policy model: update and application. Health Serv Res. 23, 203–235 (1988).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Furlong W Feeny D, Boyle M. Multiattribute preference functions. Health Utilities Index. PharmacoEconomics 7, 503–520 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sintonen H. The 15D measure of HRQoL: reliability, validity and the sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Monash University and The University of Melbourne, Australia (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Brooks R. Euroqol: the current state of play. Health Policy37, 53–72 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J. Health Econom. 5, 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MVH group. The measurement and valuation of health: first report on the main survey Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. Health status index: category rating versus magnitude estimation for measuring levels of well-being. Med Cam 17, 501–525 (1979).
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Feeny D, Revicki D. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qua'. Life Res. 2, 467–475 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Revicki D. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med. Cam. 30, M5274—M5282 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• Nord E. Methods for quality adjustment of life years. Soc. Sci. Med 34, 559–569 (1992).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robinson A, Loomes G, Jones-Lee M. Visual analog scales, standard gambles and relative risk aversion. Med Decis. Making 21, 17–27 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• •Offers a rigourous critique of the visual analog scale—standard gamble relationship.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Soc. Sci Med 39, 7–21(1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nord E. The validity of a visual analog scale in determining social utility weights for health states. Intj Health Ran. Manag: 6, 234–242 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• •Reviews the role of visual analog scales in deriving quality-adjusted life years weights.
   Google Scholar
• Morris J. Durand M. Category Rating Methods: numerical and verbal scales — results from a pilot study Mimeograph, Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1989).
   Google Scholar
• Dyer J, Sarin R. Relative risk aversion. Management Science 28, 875–886 (1982).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr R, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med Cam 34, 702–722 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Broome J. Qalys. I pub. Economics 50, 149–167 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Stevens S, Galanter E. Ratio scales for a dozen perceptual continual. I Exp. Pwchol. 54, 377 (1957).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Parducci A. Category rating and the relational character of judgement. In: Category Rating and the Relational Character of Judgement. Geissler HG. (Ed.). VEB Deutcher Verlag Der Wissen-Schaften, Berlin, Germany (1983).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Feeny D, Furlong W Visual analog Scales: do they have a role in the measurement of preferences for health states? Med Decis. Making329-334 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Von Neumann J, Morganstem 0. Theory of Games ancl Economic Behosdour: Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ, USA (1944).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance G. Social preferences for health states: an empirical evaluation of three measurement techniques. Socio-Economic Plan. Li. 10, 129–136 (1976).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Valuing health states: a comparison of methods. Health Econom. 15, 209–231 (1996a).
   Google Scholar
• Green C, Brazier J, Deverill M. A review of health state valuation techniques. PharmacoEconomics 17, 151 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Bakker C, Rutten M, van Doorslaer E, Bennett K, van der Linden S. Feasibility of utility assessment by rating scale and standard gamble in patients with ankylosing spondilitis or fibromyalgia. Rheumatol 21, 269–274 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Read J, Quinn R, Berwick D, Weinstein M. Preferences for health outcomes: comparison of assessment methods. Med Decis. Making 4, 315–329 (1984).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombadier C, Wolfson A, Sinclair A, McGreer A. Comparison of three measurement methodologies in the evaluation of functional status index. In: Comparison of Three measurement Methodologies in the Evaluation of Functional Status Index. Deber R, Thompson G (Eds). University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn-Thomas H, Sutherland H, Tibshirani R, Ciampi A, Till J, Boyd N. Describing health states: methodological issues in obtaining values for health states. Med Care22, 543–552 (1984).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bass E, Steinberg E, Pitt HA etal Comparison of the rating scale and the Standard Gamble in measuring patient preferences for outcomes of Gallstone Disease. Med Decis. Making- 14, 307–314 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homberger J, Redelmeier D, Petersen J. Variability among methods to assess patients' well-being and consequent effect on a cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Cum Epidemiology45, 505–512 (1992).
   Google Scholar
• MVH group. The measurement and valuation of health: final report on the modelling of valuation tariffs. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Dolan P, Sutton M. Mapping visual analog scale health state valuations onto standard gamble and time trade-off values. Soc. ScL Med. 44, 1519–1530 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond M, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int. Technol. Assess. Healthcare 7, 561–573 (1991).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Loomes G. Disparities between health state measures: is there a rational explanation? In: Disparities Between Health State Measures: is there a rational explanation? Gerrard W (Ed.). Routledge, London, UK (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Stiggelbout A, Eijkemans M, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, De Haes H. The 'utility' of the visual analog scale in medical decision making and technology assessment. Is it an alternative to the time trade-off? int. j Technol. Assess. Healthcare 12,291–298 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Bleichrodt H, Johannesson M. An experimental test of a theoretical foundation for rating—scale valuations. Med Decis. Making 17,208–216 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Currim I, Sarin R. A comparative evaluation of multiattribute consumer preference models. Man. Sc]. 30,543–561 (1984).
   Google Scholar
• Gafni A. The standard gamble method: what is being measured and how it is interpreted. Health Serv. Res. 29,207–224 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sackett D, Torrance G. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J. Chien. Dis. 31,697–704 (1978).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sutherland H, Llewellyn T, Boyd D,Till J. Attitudes towards quality of survival: the concept of maximum endurable time. Med Decis. Making2, 299–309 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 47,263–291 (1979).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance G, Boyle M, Horwood S. Application of multiattribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research 30,1043 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Stiggelbout A, Kiebert G, Kievit J, Leer J, Stoter G, de Haes J. Utility assessment in cancer patients: adjustment of time tradeoff scores for the utility of life years and comparison with standard gamble scores. Med Decis. Making 14,82–90 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Harper R, Thomas K, Jones N, Underwood T Deriving a preference based single index measure from the SF-36. Clin. Epidemiol. 51,1115-1129 (1998).
   Google Scholar
• Euroqol group. Euroqol — a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality-of-life. Health Policy16,199–208 (1990).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rutten van Molken M, Bakker C, van Doorslaer E. Methodological issues of patient utility measurement. Experience from two clinical trials. Med Care 33,922–937 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Bakker C, Rutten M, van Santen Hoeufft M. Patient utilities in fybromyalgia and the association with other outcome measures. J. Rheumatol 22,1536–1543 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Robinson A, Dolan P, Williams A. Valuing health states using VAS and Tilt): what lies behind the numbers? Soc. Sc]. Med. 45, 1289–1297 (1997)
   Google Scholar
• •Reports a qualitative study attempting to understand what respondents mean in their answers to visual analog scales.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bussbach J De validiteit van QALY's [The validity of QALY's]. (Unpublished PhD thesis, 1994).
   Google Scholar