312 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28623464)
21. Does the choice of EQ-5D tariff matter? A comparison of the Swedish EQ-5D-3L index score with UK, US, Germany and Denmark among type 2 diabetes patients.
Kiadaliri AA; Eliasson B; Gerdtham UG
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2015 Sep; 13():145. PubMed ID: 26374709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Can Mapping Algorithms Based on Raw Scores Overestimate QALYs Gained by Treatment? A Comparison of Mappings Between the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the EQ-5D-3L Based on Raw and Differenced Score Data.
Madan J; Khan KA; Petrou S; Lamb SE
Pharmacoeconomics; 2017 May; 35(5):549-559. PubMed ID: 28063083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an older post-acute patient population relative to the general population.
Couzner L; Crotty M; Norman R; Ratcliffe J
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2013 Aug; 11(4):415-25. PubMed ID: 23807538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Valuation of EQ-5D-3L health states in Singapore: modeling of time trade-off values for 80 empirically observed health states.
Luo N; Wang P; Thumboo J; Lim YW; Vrijhoef HJ
Pharmacoeconomics; 2014 May; 32(5):495-507. PubMed ID: 24519603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Estimating an EQ-5D-Y-3L Value Set for China.
Yang Z; Jiang J; Wang P; Jin X; Wu J; Fang Y; Feng D; Xi X; Li S; Jing M; Zheng B; Huang W; Luo N
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Dec; 40(Suppl 2):147-155. PubMed ID: 36396878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. An experience- and preference-based EQ-5D-3L value set derived using 18 months of longitudinal data in patients who sustained a fracture: results from the ICUROS.
Svedbom A; Borgstöm F; Hernlund E; Alekna V; Bianchi ML; Clark P; Diaz-Curiel M; Dimai HP; Jürisson M; Lesnyak O; McCloskey E; Sanders KM; Silverman S; Tamulaitiene M; Thomas T; Tosteson ANA; Jönsson B; Kanis JA
Qual Life Res; 2023 Apr; 32(4):1199-1208. PubMed ID: 36495384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessing the health of the general population in England: how do the three- and five-level versions of EQ-5D compare?
Feng Y; Devlin N; Herdman M
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2015 Oct; 13():171. PubMed ID: 26489956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of the performance of algorithms mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D index in a metastatic colorectal cancer cost-effectiveness model.
Franken MD; de Hond A; Degeling K; Punt CJA; Koopman M; Uyl-de Groot CA; Versteegh MM; van Oijen MGH
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2020 Jul; 18(1):240. PubMed ID: 32690011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. General population reference values for 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire in Poland.
Golicki D; Niewada M
Pol Arch Med Wewn; 2015; 125(1-2):18-26. PubMed ID: 25578383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Japanese population norms for preference-based measures: EQ-5D-3L, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-6D.
Shiroiwa T; Fukuda T; Ikeda S; Igarashi A; Noto S; Saito S; Shimozuma K
Qual Life Res; 2016 Mar; 25(3):707-19. PubMed ID: 26303761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Generating EQ-5D-3L Utility Scores from the Dermatology Life Quality Index: A Mapping Study in Patients with Psoriasis.
Davison NJ; Thompson AJ; Turner AJ; Longworth L; McElhone K; Griffiths CEM; Payne K;
Value Health; 2018 Aug; 21(8):1010-1018. PubMed ID: 30098665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Estimating quality weights for EQ-5D (EuroQol-5 dimensions) health states with the time trade-off method in Taiwan.
Lee HY; Hung MC; Hu FC; Chang YY; Hsieh CL; Wang JD
J Formos Med Assoc; 2013 Nov; 112(11):699-706. PubMed ID: 24183199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Head-to-Head Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Health Values.
Selivanova A; Buskens E; Krabbe PFM
Pharmacoeconomics; 2018 Jun; 36(6):715-725. PubMed ID: 29623559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Converting Parkinson-Specific Scores into Health State Utilities to Assess Cost-Utility Analysis.
Chen G; Garcia-Gordillo MA; Collado-Mateo D; Del Pozo-Cruz B; Adsuar JC; Cordero-Ferrera JM; Abellán-Perpiñán JM; Sánchez-Martínez FI
Patient; 2018 Dec; 11(6):665-675. PubMed ID: 29876865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Mapping EQ-5D-3L from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).
Kiadaliri A; Alava MH; Roos EM; Englund M
Qual Life Res; 2020 Jan; 29(1):265-274. PubMed ID: 31541386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Modelling a preference-based index for EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-3L + Sleep using a Bayesian framework.
Kharroubi SA; Beyh YS; Brazier J; Yang Y
Qual Life Res; 2020 Jun; 29(6):1495-1507. PubMed ID: 32016681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Does the Introduction of the Ranking Task in Valuation Studies Improve Data Quality and Reduce Inconsistencies? The Case of the EQ-5D-5L.
Ramos-Goñi JM; Rand-Hendriksen K; Pinto-Prades JL
Value Health; 2016 Jun; 19(4):478-86. PubMed ID: 27325340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. General population normative data for the EQ-5D-3L in the five largest European economies.
Janssen MF; Pickard AS; Shaw JW
Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Dec; 22(9):1467-1475. PubMed ID: 34117986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The impact of a revised EQ-5D population scoring on preference-based utility scores in an inflammatory arthritis cohort.
Adams R; Craig BM; Walsh CD; Veale DJ; Bresnihan B; FitzGerald O; Barry M
Value Health; 2011; 14(6):921-7. PubMed ID: 21914514
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
