448 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25159172)
1. Comparing and explaining differences in the magnitude, content, and sensitivity of utilities predicted by the EQ-5D, SF-6D, HUI 3, 15D, QWB, and AQoL-8D multiattribute utility instruments.
Richardson J; Khan MA; Iezzi A; Maxwell A
Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):276-91. PubMed ID: 25159172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mapping between 6 Multiattribute Utility Instruments.
Chen G; Khan MA; Iezzi A; Ratcliffe J; Richardson J
Med Decis Making; 2016 Feb; 36(2):160-75. PubMed ID: 25840901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Measuring the Sensitivity and Construct Validity of 6 Utility Instruments in 7 Disease Areas.
Richardson J; Iezzi A; Khan MA; Chen G; Maxwell A
Med Decis Making; 2016 Feb; 36(2):147-59. PubMed ID: 26582319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Health state utility instruments compared: inquiring into nonlinearity across EQ-5D-5L, SF-6D, HUI-3 and 15D.
Gamst-Klaussen T; Chen G; Lamu AN; Olsen JA
Qual Life Res; 2016 Jul; 25(7):1667-78. PubMed ID: 26687615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Can multi-attribute utility instruments adequately account for subjective well-being?
Richardson J; Chen G; Khan MA; Iezzi A
Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):292-304. PubMed ID: 25623064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: the relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and 'micro-utility' effects.
Richardson J; Iezzi A; Khan MA
Qual Life Res; 2015 Aug; 24(8):2045-53. PubMed ID: 25636660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Diabetes and quality of life: Comparing results from utility instruments and Diabetes-39.
Chen G; Iezzi A; McKie J; Khan MA; Richardson J
Diabetes Res Clin Pract; 2015 Aug; 109(2):326-33. PubMed ID: 26013567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments in Patients Who Have Previously Undergone Bariatric Surgery.
Campbell JA; Palmer AJ; Venn A; Sharman M; Otahal P; Neil A
Patient; 2016 Aug; 9(4):311-22. PubMed ID: 26841910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The impact of depression on health-related quality of life and wellbeing: identifying important dimensions and assessing their inclusion in multi-attribute utility instruments.
Engel L; Chen G; Richardson J; Mihalopoulos C
Qual Life Res; 2018 Nov; 27(11):2873-2884. PubMed ID: 30006664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Validity and reliability of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL)-8D multi-attribute utility instrument.
Richardson J; Iezzi A; Khan MA; Maxwell A
Patient; 2014; 7(1):85-96. PubMed ID: 24271592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments.
Hawthorne G; Richardson J; Day NA
Ann Med; 2001 Jul; 33(5):358-70. PubMed ID: 11491195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Deriving health utilities from the MacNew Heart Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire.
Chen G; McKie J; Khan MA; Richardson JR
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs; 2015 Oct; 14(5):405-15. PubMed ID: 24829296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessing outcomes for cost-utility analysis in depression: comparison of five multi-attribute utility instruments with two depression-specific outcome measures.
Mihalopoulos C; Chen G; Iezzi A; Khan MA; Richardson J
Br J Psychiatry; 2014 Nov; 205(5):390-7. PubMed ID: 25257063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research.
Whitehurst DG; Noonan VK; Dvorak MF; Bryan S
Spinal Cord; 2012 Sep; 50(9):646-54. PubMed ID: 22641255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessing Outcomes for Cost-Utility Analysis in Children and Adolescents With Mental Health Problems: Are Multiattribute Utility Instruments Fit for Purpose?
Mihalopoulos C; Chen G; Scott JG; Bucholc J; Allen C; Coghill D; Jenkins P; Norman R; Ratcliffe J; Richardson J; Stathis S; Viney R
Value Health; 2023 May; 26(5):733-741. PubMed ID: 36535579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Estimating the disutility of relapse in relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive multiple sclerosis using the EQ-5D-5L, AQoL-8D, EQ-5D-5L-psychosocial, and SF-6D: implications for health economic evaluation models.
Ahmad H; Campbell JA; van der Mei I; Taylor BV; Xia Q; Zhao T; Palmer AJ
Qual Life Res; 2023 Dec; 32(12):3373-3387. PubMed ID: 37522942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accounts from developers of generic health state utility instruments explain why they produce different QALYs: A qualitative study.
Pickles K; Lancsar E; Seymour J; Parkin D; Donaldson C; Carter SM
Soc Sci Med; 2019 Nov; 240():112560. PubMed ID: 31563007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interchangeability of the EQ-5D and the SF-6D, and comparison of their psychometric properties in a spinal postoperative Spanish population.
Selva-Sevilla C; Ferrara P; Gerónimo-Pardo M
Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Jun; 21(4):649-662. PubMed ID: 32065301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A review of the psychometric properties of generic utility measures in multiple sclerosis.
Kuspinar A; Mayo NE
Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 Aug; 32(8):759-73. PubMed ID: 24846760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mapping the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30 to the preference-based EQ-5D, SF-6D, and 15D instruments.
Kontodimopoulos N; Aletras VH; Paliouras D; Niakas D
Value Health; 2009; 12(8):1151-7. PubMed ID: 19558372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
