QALY weights for neurosensory impairments in pediatric economic evaluations: case studies and a critique

References

• Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. HALYs and QALYs and DALYs, oh my: similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Annu. Rev. Public Health23, 115–134 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassi F. Calculating QALYs, comparing QALY and DALY calculations. Health Policy Plan.21, 402–408 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, O’Brien B, Stoddard GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC. Preference-based measures in economic evaluation in health care. Annu. Rev. Public Health21, 587–611 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell CM, Chapman RH, Stone PW, Sandberg EA, Neumann PJ. An off-the-shelf help list: a comprehensive catalog of preference scores from published cost-utility analyses. Med. Decis. Making21, 288–294 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA, Hammitt JK, Keren R. Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics25, 713–726 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll AE, Downs SM. Improving decision analyses: parent preferences (utility values) for pediatric health outcomes. J. Pediatr.155, 21–25 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S, Kupek E. Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Med. Decis. Making29, 291–303 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griebsch I, Coast J, Brown J. Quality-adjusted life-years lack quality in pediatric care: a critical review of published cost-utility studies in child health. Pediatrics115, E600–E614 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sung L, Petrou S, Ungar WJ. Measurement of health utilities in children. In: Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Ungar W (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 77–90 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Saigal S, Rosenbaum P, Stoskopf B et al. Development, reliability and validity of a new measure of overall health for pre-school children. Qual. Life Res.14, 243–257 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilford JM. Cost-effectiveness analysis and emergency medical services for children: issues and applications. Ambul. Pediatr.2, 330–336 (2002).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Basu A, Meltzer D. Implications of spillover effects within the family for medical cost-effectiveness analysis. J. Health Econ.24, 751–773 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilford JM, Grosse SD, Robbins JM, Pyne JM, Cleves MA, Hobbs CA. Health state preference scores of children with spina bifida and their caregivers. Qual. Life Res.14, 1087–1098 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Tilford JM. Incorporating caregiver and family effects in economic evaluations of child health. In: Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Ungar W (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 55–76 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Grosse SD, Teutsch SM, Haddix AC. Lessons from cost-effectiveness research for USA public health policy. Annu. Rev. Public Health28, 365–391 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grosse SD. Cost effectiveness as a criterion for newborn screening policy decisions: a critical review. In: Ethics and Newborn Genetic Screening: New Technologies, New Challenges. Baily MA, Murray T (Eds). Johns Hopkins University Press, MD, USA 58–88 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Grosse SD. Economic evaluations of newborn screening interventions. In: Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Ungar W (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 113–132 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Grosse SD. Assessing the clinical utility of newborn screening. In: Human Genome Epidemiology (2nd Edition). Khoury MJ, Bedrosian S, Gwinn M, Higgins J, Ioannidis J, Little J (Eds). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 517–532 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Prosser LA, Ray GT, O’Brien M, Kleinman K, Santoli J, Lieu TA. Preferences and willingness to pay for health states prevented by pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics113, 283–290 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA, Kong CY, Rusinak D, Waisbren SL. Projected costs, risks, and benefits of expanded newborn screening for MCADD. Pediatrics125, E286–E294 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (Eds). Oxford University Press, NY, USA (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg MD, Vig S. Intellectual disability/mental retardation. In: Child and Adolescent Neurology for Psychiatrists. Walker AM, Kaufman DM, Pfeffer CR, Solomon GE (Eds). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PA, USA 243–264 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Norman R, Haas M, Wilcken B. International perspectives on the cost-effectiveness of tandem mass spectrometry for rare metabolic conditions. Health Policy89, 252–260 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer A, John J. Neugeborenenscreening im Spannungsfeld der Gesundheitsökonomie. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd157, 1230–1236 (2009).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray GT. Pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: review of cost-effectiveness studies in Australia, North America and Europe. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.8, 373–393 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lieu TA, Ray GT, Black SB et al. Projected cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of healthy infants and young children. JAMA283, 1460–1468 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J. Health Econ.5, 1–30 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M et al. Multi-attribute health status classification systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics7, 490–502 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan P. Output measures and valuation in health. In: Economic Evaluation in Health Care. Drummond MF, McGuire A (Eds). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 46–67 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann. Med.33, 337–343 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med. Care43, 203–220 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Feeny DH, Furlong WJ, Barr RD, Zhang Y, Wang Q. Multiattribute utility function for a comprehensive health status classification system. Health Utilities Index Mark 2. Med. Care34, 702–722 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med. Care40, 113–128 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RM, Bush JW. Health-related quality of life measurement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychol.1, 61–80 (1982).
   Google Scholar
• Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J. Health Econ.21, 271–292 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feeny D, Torrance GW, Labelle R. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials (2nd Edition). Spilker B (Ed.). Lippincott-Raven Press, PA, USA 85–95 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Neumann PJ, Sandberg PA, Araki SS, Kuntz KM, Feeny D, Weinstein MC. A comparison of HUI2 and HUI3 utility scores in Alzheimer’s disease. Med. Decis. Making20, 413–422 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatoum HT, Brazier JE, Akhras KS. Comparison of the HUI3 with the SF-36 preference based SF-6D in a clinical trial setting. Value Health7, 602–609 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joore M, Brunenberg D, Nelemans P et al. The impact of differences in EQ-5D and SF-6D utility scores on the acceptability of cost-utility ratios: results across five trial-based cost-utility studies. Value Health (2010) (In press).
   Google Scholar
• Marra CA, Marion SA, Guh DP et al. Not all “quality-adjusted life years” are equal. J. Clin. Epidemiol.60, 616–624 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sach TH, Barton GR, Jenkinson C, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Muir KR. Comparing cost-utility estimates: does the choice of EQ-5D or SF-6D matter? Med. Care47, 889–894 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo N, Johnson JA, Shaw JW, Feeny D, Coons SJ. Self-reported health status of the general adult U.S. population as assessed by the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index. Med. Care43, 1078–1086 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement study. Med. Care45, 1162–1170 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med. Care41, 791–801 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC, Summerfield QA. Comparing utility scores before and after hearing-aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy3, 103–105 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Knies S, Evers SM, Candel MJ, Severens JL, Ament AJ. Utilities of the EQ-5D: transferable or not? Pharmacoeconomics27, 767–779 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norman R, Cronin P, Viney R, King M, Street D, Ratcliffe J. International comparisons in valuing EQ-5D health states: a review and analysis. Value Health (2010) (In press).
   Google Scholar
• Noyes K, Dick AW, Holloway RG. The implications of using US-specific EQ-5D preference weights for cost-effectiveness evaluation. Med. Decis. Making27, 327–334 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith-Olinde L, Grosse SD, Olinde F, Martin PF, Tilford JM. Health state preference scores for children with permanent childhood hearing loss: a comparative analysis of the QWB and HUI3. Qual. Life Res.17, 943–953 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saigal S, Feeny D, Rosenbaum P, Furlong W, Burrows E, Stoskopf B. Self-perceived health status and health-related quality of life of extremely low-birth-weight infants at adolescence. JAMA276, 453–459 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saigal S, Rosenbaum PL, Feeny D et al. Parental perspectives of the health status and health-related quality of life of teen-aged children who were extremely low birth weight and term controls. Pediatrics105, 569–574 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Autti-Ramo I, Makela M, Sintonen H et al. Expanding screening for rare metabolic disease in the newborn: an analysis of costs, effect and ethical consequences for decision-making in Finland. Acta Paediatr.94, 1126–1136 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll AE, Downs SM. Comprehensive cost-utility analysis of newborn screening strategies. Pediatrics117, 287–295 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feuchtbaum L, Cunningham G. Economic evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry screening in California. Pediatrics117, 280–286 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Insinga RP, Laessig RH, Hoffman GL. Newborn screening with tandem mass spectrometry: screening with tandem mass spectrometry: examining its cost-effectiveness in the Wisconsin Newborn Screening Panel. J. Pediatr.141, 524–531 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoen EJ, Baker JC, Colby CJ, To TT. Cost-benefit analysis of universal tandem mass spectrometry for newborn screening. Pediatrics110, 781–786 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for medium chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency using tandem mass spectrometry. Clin. Biochem.40, 235–241 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venditti LN, Venditti CP, Berry GT et al. Newborn screening by tandem mass spectrometry for medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Pediatrics112, 1005–1015 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langfitt JT. Cost-effectiveness of anterotemporal lobectomy in medically intractable complex partial epilepsy. Epilepsia38, 154–163 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallmes DF, Kallmes MH. Cost-effectiveness of angiography performed during surgery for ruptured intracranial aneurysms. Am. J. Neuroradiol.18, 1453–1462 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran K, Banerjee S, Li H, Noorani HZ, Mensinkai S, Dooley K. Newborn Screening for Medium Chain Acyl-CoA Dehydrogenase Deficiency Using Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Clinical and Cost Effectiveness. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, Ottawa, Canada, Technology report no 62 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Bennett JE, Sumner W 2nd, Downs SM, Jaffe DM. Parents’ utilities for outcomes of occult bacteremia. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med.154, 43–48 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grosse SD. Assessing cost effectiveness in health care: the history of the $50,000 per QALY threshold. Expert Rev. Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res.8, 165–178 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bridges JF, Onukwugha E, Mullins CD. Healthcare rationing by proxy: cost-effectiveness analysis and the misuse of the $50 000 threshold in the US. Pharmacoeconomics28, 175–184 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Briggs AH, O’Brien BJ, Blackhouse G. Thinking outside the box: recent advances in the analysis and presentation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness studies. Annu. Rev. Public Health23, 377–401 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groot Koerkamp B, Hunink MG, Stijnen T, Hammitt JK, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC. Limitations of acceptability curves for presenting uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Decis. Making27, 101–111 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergman A, Hjelmgren J, Ortqvist A et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a universal vaccination programme with the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV-7) in Sweden. Scand. J. Infect. Dis.40, 721–729 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisløff T, Abrahamsen TG, Bergsaker MA et al. Cost effectiveness of adding 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate (PCV-7) vaccine to the Norwegian childhood vaccination program. Vaccine24, 5690–5699 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubben GA, Bos JM, Glynn DM, van der Ende A, van Alphen L, Postma MJ. Enhanced decision support for policy makers using a web interface to health-economic models – illustrated with a cost-effectiveness analysis of nation-wide infant vaccination with the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in The Netherlands. Vaccine25, 3669–3678 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos JM, Rümke HC, Welte R, Postma MJ, Jager JC. Health economics of a hexavalent meningococcal outer-membrane vesicle vaccine in children: potential impact of introduction in the Dutch vaccination program. Vaccine12, 202–207 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ess SM, Schaad UB, Gervaix A, Pinösch S, Szucs TD. Cost-effectiveness of a pneumococcal conjugate immunisation program for infants in Switzerland. Vaccine21, 3273–3281 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trotter CL, Edmunds WJ. Reassessing the cost-effectiveness of meningococcal serogroup C conjugate (MCC) vaccines using a transmission dynamic model. Med. Decis. Making26, 38–47 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poirier B, De Wals P, Petit G, Erickson LJ, Pépin J. Cost-effectiveness of a 3-dose pneumococcal conjugate vaccine program in the province of Quebec, Canada. Vaccine27, 7105–7109 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salo H, Sintonen H, Nuorti JP et al. Economic evaluation of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in Finland. Scand. J. Infect. Dis.37, 821–832 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruedin HJ, Ess S, Zimmermann HP, Szucs T. Invasive meningococcal and pneumococcal disease in Switzerland: cost-utility analysis of different vaccine strategies. Vaccine21, 4145–4152 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wals P, Petit G, Erickson LJ et al. Benefits and costs of immunization of children with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in Canada. Vaccine21, 3757–3764 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos JM, Rümke HC, Welte R, Postma MJ. Epidemiologic impact and cost-effectiveness of universal infant vaccination with a 7-valent conjugated pneumococcal vaccine in the Netherlands. Clin. Ther.25, 2614–2630 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bos JM, Rümke HC, Welte R, Spanjaard L, van Alphen L, Postma MJ. Combination vaccine against invasive meningococcal B and pneumococcal infections: potential epidemiological and economic impact in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics24, 141–153 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melegaro A, Edmunds WJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination in England and Wales. Vaccine22, 4203–4214 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oostenbrink R, Oostenbrink JB, Moons KG et al. Cost-utility analysis of patient care in children with meningeal signs. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care18, 485–496 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepard CW, Ortega-Sanchez IR, Scott RD, Rosenstein NE. ABCs team. Cost-effectiveness of conjugate meningococcal vaccination strategies in the United States. Pediatrics115, 1220–1232 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou F, Bisgard KM, Yusuf HR, Deuson RR, Bath SK, Murphy TV. Impact of universal Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination starting at 2 months of age in the United States: an economic analysis. Pediatrics110, 653–661 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP. Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper. Res.30, 1043–1069 (1982).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livartowski A, Boucher J, Detournay B, Reinert P. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae invasive disease in France. Vaccine14, 495–500 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, Niparko JK. Cost-utility analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA284, 850–856 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krabbe PFM, Hinderink JB, van den Broek P. The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually deaf adults. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care16, 864–873 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stouthard MEA, Esselink-Bot ML, van Bonsel G et al.Weighing Factors For Diseases in The Netherlands. Institute for Social Health Care, Amsterdam Medical Center. Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Stouthard MEA, Essink-Bot ML, Bonsel GJ; Dutch Disability Weights (DDW) Group. Disability weights for diseases. A modified protocol and results for a Western European region. Eur. J. Public Health10, 24–30 (2000).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oostenbrink R, A Moll HA, Essink-Bot ML. The EQ-5D and the Health Utilities Index for permanent sequelae after meningitis: a head-to-head comparison. J. Clin. Epidemiol.55, 791–799 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Stacey PC, Fortnum HM, Summerfield AQ. Hearing-impaired children in the United Kingdom, IV: cost-effectiveness of pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear.27, 575–588 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrou S, McCann D, Law CM, Watkin PM, Worsfold S, Kennedy CR. Health status and health-related quality of life preference-based outcomes of children who are aged 7 to 9 years and have bilateral permanent childhood hearing impairment. Pediatrics120, 1044–1052 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton GR, Bankart J, Davis AC. A comparison of the quality of life of hearing-impaired people as estimated by three different utility measures. Int. J. Audiol.44, 157–163 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega-Sanchez IR, Meltzer MI, Shepard C et al. Economics of an adolescent meningococcal conjugate vaccination catch-up campaign in the United States. Clin. Infect. Dis.46, 1–13 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudex C, Kind P. The QALY Toolkit. Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK, Discussion paper no. 38 (1988).
   Google Scholar
• Petrou S. Should health gains by children be given the same value as health gains by adults in an economic evaluation framework? In: Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Ungar W (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA 271–287 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Tarride JE, Burke N, Bischof M et al. A review of health utilities across conditions common in paediatric and adult populations. Health Qual. Life Outcomes8, 12 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin S, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Decision analysis for resource allocation in health care. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy13, 23–30 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell CM, Urbach DR, Ray JG et al. Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review. BMJ332, 699–703 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warner KE, Smith RJ, Smith DG, Fries BE. Health and economic implications of a work-site smoking-cessation program: a simulation analysis. J. Occup. Environ. Med.38, 981–992 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valuing Health for Regulatory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Institute of Medicine, Miller W, Robinson LA, Lawrence RS (Eds). National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Lipscomb J, Drummond M, Fryback D, Gold M, Revicki D. Retaining, and enhancing, the QALY. Value Health12, S18–S26 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Drummond M, Brixner D, Gold M et al. Toward a consensus on the QALY. Value Health12, S31–S35 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF Jr, Ghushchyan V. A national catalogue of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the U.S. Med. Care43, 736–749 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med. Decis. Making26, 410–420 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA. National health preference data: a useful resource for health services research. Med. Decis. Making26, 310–312 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franks P, Hanmer J, Fryback DG. Relative disutilities of 47 risk factors and conditions assessed with seven preference-based health status measures in a national U.S. sample: toward consistency in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med. Care44, 478–485 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fu AZ, Kattan MW. Utilities should not be multiplied: evidence from the preference-based scores in the United States. Med. Care46, 984–990 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prosser LA. Current challenges and future research in measuring preferences for pediatric health outcomes. J. Pediatr.155, 7–9 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Lawrence WF, Martin PA, Klein R, Klein BE. Predicting quality of well-being scores from the SF-36: results from the Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study. Med. Decis. Making17, 1–9 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, Chen WH, Hays RD, Cella D. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual. Life Res.18, 783–791 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fryback DG, Palta M, Cherepanov D, Bolt D, Kim JS. Comparison of 5 health-related quality-of-life indexes using item response theory analysis. Med. Decis. Making30, 5–15 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladapo JA, Neumann PJ, Keren R, Prosser LA. Valuing children’s health: a comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics25, 817–828 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Economic Evaluation in Child Health. Ungar W (Ed.). Oxford University Press, NY, USA (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Pickard A, Kohlmann T, Janssen M et al. Evaluating equivalency between response systems: application of the Rasch model to 3-level and 5-level EQ-5D. Med. Care45, 812–819 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar