Advanced search
Publication Cover
Scandinavian Cardiovascular Journal Volume 48, 2014 - Issue 4
Submit an article Journal homepage
587
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Health-related quality of life after myocardial infarction, does choice of method make a difference?

Ellen BøhmerDepartment of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, NorwayCorrespondence[email protected]
,
Ivar S. KristiansenDepartment of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Harald ArnesenCenter for Clinical Heart Research, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway;Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
&
Sigrun HalvorsenDepartment of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Ulleval, Oslo, Norway
Pages 216-222 | Received 25 Jan 2014, Accepted 07 May 2014, Published online: 26 Jun 2014

References

  • Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Saloman JA, Tsuchiya A. Measuring and Valuing Health Benefits for Economic Evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.
  • Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosisnki M, Gandek B. SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.
  • Loge JH, Kaasa S, Hjermstad MJ, Kvien TK. Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.I. Data quality, scaling, assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1069–76.
  • Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF.-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21:271–92.
  • Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33: 328–36.
  • Conner-Spady B, Suarez-Almazor ME. Variation in estimation of quality-adjusted life-years by different preference-based instruments. Med Care. 2003;41:791–801.
  • Lillegraven S, Kristiansen IS, Kvien TK. Comparison of utility measures and their relationship with other health status measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1762–67.
  • Whitehurst DGT, Bryan S. Another Study showing that two preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-6D) are not interchangeable. But why should we expect them to be. Value Health. 2011;14:531–38.
  • Sørensen J, Linde L, Ostergaard M, Hetland ML. Quality-adjusted life expectancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - comparison of index scores from EQ-5D, 15D, and SF-6D. Value Health. 2012;15:334–39.
  • Moock J, Kohlmann T. Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:485–95.
  • Stavem K, Frøland SS, Hellum KB. Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Qual Life Res. 2005;4:971–80.
  • Bøhmer E, Hoffmann P, Abdelnoor M, Arnesen H, Halvorsen S. Efficacy and safety of immediate angioplasty versus ischemia-guided management after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in areas with very long transfer distances. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:102–10.
  • Bøhmer E, Kristiansen IS, Arnesen H, Halvorsen S. Health and cost consequences of early versus late invasive strategy after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2011;18:717–23.
  • Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF.-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4.
  • Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance to control for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14:487–96.
  • Tomlinson G, Detsky AS. Composite endpoints inrandomized trials: there is no free lunch. JAMA. 2010; 303:267–8.
  • Ferreira-Gonzáles I, Permanyer-Miralda G, Busse JW, Bryant DM, Montori VM, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Methodologic discussions for using and interpreting composite endpoints are limited, but still identify major concerns. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:651–7.
  • Bakal JA, Westerhout CM, Cantor WJ, Fernández-Avilés F, Welsh RC, Fitchett D, et al. Evaluation of early percutaneous coronary intervention vs. standard therapy after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: contribution of weighting the composite endpoint. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:903–8.
  • Pocock SJ, Ariti CA, Collier TJ, Wang D. The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:176–82.
  • Cantor WJ, Fitchett D, Borgundvaag B, Ducas J, Heffernan M, Cohen EA, et al. Routine early angioplasty after fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2009;360: 2705–18.
  • Rumsfeld JS, Alexander KP, Goff DC, Graham MM, Ho PM, Masoudi FA, et al. Cardiovascular health: the importance of measuring patient-reported health status. Circulation. 2013;127:2233–49.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.