168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27987630)
1. Order of Presentation of Dimensions Does Not Systematically Bias Utility Weights from a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Norman R; Kemmler G; Viney R; Pickard AS; Gamper E; Holzner B; Nerich V; King M
Value Health; 2016 Dec; 19(8):1033-1038. PubMed ID: 27987630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Australian Utility Weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived from the Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30.
King MT; Viney R; Simon Pickard A; Rowen D; Aaronson NK; Brazier JE; Cella D; Costa DSJ; Fayers PM; Kemmler G; McTaggart-Cowen H; Mercieca-Bebber R; Peacock S; Street DJ; Young TA; Norman R;
Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Feb; 36(2):225-238. PubMed ID: 29270835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Japanese value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D: A multi-attribute utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire.
Shiroiwa T; King MT; Norman R; Müller F; Campbell R; Kemmler G; Murata T; Shimozuma K; Fukuda T
Qual Life Res; 2024 Jul; 33(7):1865-1879. PubMed ID: 38724771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. U.K. utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D.
Norman R; Mercieca-Bebber R; Rowen D; Brazier JE; Cella D; Pickard AS; Street DJ; Viney R; Revicki D; King MT;
Health Econ; 2019 Dec; 28(12):1385-1401. PubMed ID: 31482619
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. German value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a cancer-specific utility instrument based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.
Kemmler G; Gamper E; Nerich V; Norman R; Viney R; Holzner B; King M;
Qual Life Res; 2019 Dec; 28(12):3197-3211. PubMed ID: 31485913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. United States Utility Algorithm for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a Multiattribute Utility Instrument Based on a Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Instrument.
Revicki DA; King MT; Viney R; Pickard AS; Mercieca-Bebber R; Shaw JW; Müller F; Norman R
Med Decis Making; 2021 May; 41(4):485-501. PubMed ID: 33813946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Using a discrete choice experiment to value the QLU-C10D: feasibility and sensitivity to presentation format.
Norman R; Viney R; Aaronson NK; Brazier JE; Cella D; Costa DS; Fayers PM; Kemmler G; Peacock S; Pickard AS; Rowen D; Street DJ; Velikova G; Young TA; King MT
Qual Life Res; 2016 Mar; 25(3):637-49. PubMed ID: 26342928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Dutch utility weights for the EORTC cancer-specific utility instrument: the Dutch EORTC QLU-C10D.
Jansen F; Verdonck-de Leeuw IM; Gamper E; Norman R; Holzner B; King M; Kemmler G;
Qual Life Res; 2021 Jul; 30(7):2009-2019. PubMed ID: 33512653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Test-Retest Reliability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Valuations of QLU-C10D Health States.
Gamper EM; Holzner B; King MT; Norman R; Viney R; Nerich V; Kemmler G
Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):958-966. PubMed ID: 30098674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The EORTC QLU-C10D discrete choice experiment for cancer patients: a first step towards patient utility weights.
Gamper EM; King MT; Norman R; Loth FLC; Holzner B; Kemmler G;
J Patient Rep Outcomes; 2022 May; 6(1):42. PubMed ID: 35507194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. French Value-Set of the QLU-C10D, a Cancer-Specific Utility Measure Derived from the QLQ-C30.
Nerich V; Gamper EM; Norman R; King M; Holzner B; Viney R; Kemmler G
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2021 Mar; 19(2):191-202. PubMed ID: 32537694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. EORTC QLU-C10D value sets for Austria, Italy, and Poland.
Gamper EM; King MT; Norman R; Efficace F; Cottone F; Holzner B; Kemmler G;
Qual Life Res; 2020 Sep; 29(9):2485-2495. PubMed ID: 32458409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Utility-Core 10 Dimensions: Development and Investigation of General Population Utility Norms for Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom.
Pilz MJ; Nolte S; Liegl G; King M; Norman R; McTaggart-Cowan H; Bottomley A; Rose M; Kemmler G; Holzner B; Gamper EM;
Value Health; 2023 May; 26(5):760-767. PubMed ID: 36572102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Danish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.
Lehmann J; Rojas-Concha L; Petersen MA; Holzner B; Norman R; King MT; Kemmler G;
Qual Life Res; 2024 Mar; 33(3):831-841. PubMed ID: 38183563
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The EORTC QLU-C10D: the Hong Kong valuation study.
Xu RH; Wong EL; Luo N; Norman R; Lehmann J; Holzner B; King MT; Kemmler G;
Eur J Health Econ; 2023 Sep; ():. PubMed ID: 37768519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The EORTC QLU-C10D: The Canadian Valuation Study and Algorithm to Derive Cancer-Specific Utilities From the EORTC QLQ-C30.
McTaggart-Cowan H; King MT; Norman R; Costa DSJ; Pickard AS; Regier DA; Viney R; Peacock SJ
MDM Policy Pract; 2019; 4(1):2381468319842532. PubMed ID: 31245606
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. A pilot discrete choice experiment to explore preferences for EQ-5D-5L health states.
Norman R; Cronin P; Viney R
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Jun; 11(3):287-98. PubMed ID: 23649892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How Should Discrete Choice Experiments with Duration Choice Sets Be Presented for the Valuation of Health States?
Mulhern B; Norman R; Shah K; Bansback N; Longworth L; Viney R
Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(3):306-318. PubMed ID: 29084472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Valuing SF-6D Health States Using a Discrete Choice Experiment.
Norman R; Viney R; Brazier J; Burgess L; Cronin P; King M; Ratcliffe J; Street D
Med Decis Making; 2014 Aug; 34(6):773-86. PubMed ID: 24025661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Health state utility differed systematically in breast cancer patients between the EORTC QLU-C10D and the PROMIS Preference Score.
Klapproth CP; Fischer F; Rose M; Karsten MM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2022 Dec; 152():101-109. PubMed ID: 36162712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
