182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25636660)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
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. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. A view from the bridge: agreement between the SF-6D utility algorithm and the Health Utilities Index.
O'Brien BJ; Spath M; Blackhouse G; Severens JL; Dorian P; Brazier J
Health Econ; 2003 Nov; 12(11):975-81. PubMed ID: 14601159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Deriving population norms for the AQoL-6D and AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instruments from web-based data.
Maxwell A; Özmen M; Iezzi A; Richardson J
Qual Life Res; 2016 Dec; 25(12):3209-3219. PubMed ID: 27344318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Mapping Between the Sydney Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ-S) and Five Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments (MAUIs).
Kaambwa B; Chen G; Ratcliffe J; Iezzi A; Maxwell A; Richardson J
Pharmacoeconomics; 2017 Jan; 35(1):111-124. PubMed ID: 27557995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Comparison of utility measures and their relationship with other health status measures in 1041 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Lillegraven S; Kristiansen IS; Kvien TK
Ann Rheum Dis; 2010 Oct; 69(10):1762-7. PubMed ID: 20448285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Which multi-attribute utility instruments are recommended for use in cost-utility analysis? A review of national health technology assessment (HTA) guidelines.
Kennedy-Martin M; Slaap B; Herdman M; van Reenen M; Kennedy-Martin T; Greiner W; Busschbach J; Boye KS
Eur J Health Econ; 2020 Nov; 21(8):1245-1257. PubMed ID: 32514643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in Pompe disease.
Kanters TA; Redekop WK; Kruijshaar ME; van der Ploeg AT; Rutten-van Mölken MP; Hakkaart L
Qual Life Res; 2015 Apr; 24(4):837-44. PubMed ID: 25342117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
