116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36244905)
21. Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D.
M Versteegh M; M Vermeulen K; M A A Evers S; de Wit GA; Prenger R; A Stolk E
Value Health; 2016 Jun; 19(4):343-52. PubMed ID: 27325326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Which approach is better in eliciting health state utilities from breast cancer patients? Evidence from mainland China.
Li S; Wang M; Liu L; Chen G
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl); 2019 Mar; 28(2):e12965. PubMed ID: 30499193
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The EQ-5D-5L valuation study in Korea.
Kim SH; Ahn J; Ock M; Shin S; Park J; Luo N; Jo MW
Qual Life Res; 2016 Jul; 25(7):1845-52. PubMed ID: 26961008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Parallel Valuation: A Direct Comparison of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L Societal Value Sets.
Law EH; Pickard AS; Xie F; Walton SM; Lee TA; Schwartz A
Med Decis Making; 2018 Nov; 38(8):968-982. PubMed ID: 30403577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. A Methodological Study to Compare Alternative Modes of Administration With Value EQ-5D Using Preference-Elicitation Techniques.
Hill SR; Gibson A; Oluboyede Y; Longworth L; Bennett B; Shaw JW
Value Health; 2024 Jun; 27(6):784-793. PubMed ID: 38467189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Randomised comparison of online interviews versus face-to-face interviews to value health states.
Peasgood T; Bourke M; Devlin N; Rowen D; Yang Y; Dalziel K
Soc Sci Med; 2023 Apr; 323():115818. PubMed ID: 36940582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A shortcut to mean-based time tradeoff tariffs for the EQ-5D?
Rand-Hendriksen K; Augestad LA; Dahl FA; Kristiansen IS; Stavem K
Med Decis Making; 2012; 32(4):569-77. PubMed ID: 22247424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Valuing the EQ Health and Wellbeing Short Using Time Trade-Off and a Discrete Choice Experiment: A Feasibility Study.
Mukuria C; Peasgood T; McDool E; Norman R; Rowen D; Brazier J
Value Health; 2023 Jul; 26(7):1073-1084. PubMed ID: 36805577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Increasing respondent engagement in composite time trade-off tasks by imposing three minimum trade-offs to improve data quality.
Jiang R; Kohlmann T; Lee TA; Mühlbacher A; Shaw J; Walton S; Pickard AS
Eur J Health Econ; 2021 Feb; 22(1):17-33. PubMed ID: 32860093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Preference heterogeneity in health valuation: a latent class analysis of the Peru EQ-5D-5L values.
Karim S; Craig BM; Tejada RA; Augustovski F
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2023 Jan; 21(1):1. PubMed ID: 36593473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Estimating EQ-5D and OAB-5D health state utilities for patients with overactive bladder.
Desroziers K; Aballéa S; Maman K; Nazir J; Odeyemi I; Hakimi Z
Health Qual Life Outcomes; 2013 Nov; 11():200. PubMed ID: 24246044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. How the EQ-5D utilities are derived matters in Chinese diabetes patients: a comparison based on different EQ-5D scoring functions for China.
Pan CW; Zhang RY; Luo N; He JY; Liu RJ; Ying XH; Wang P
Qual Life Res; 2020 Nov; 29(11):3087-3094. PubMed ID: 32533422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The Danish EQ-5D-5L Value Set: A Hybrid Model Using cTTO and DCE Data.
Jensen CE; Sørensen SS; Gudex C; Jensen MB; Pedersen KM; Ehlers LH
Appl Health Econ Health Policy; 2021 Jul; 19(4):579-591. PubMed ID: 33527304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A Comparison of PROPr and EQ-5D-5L Value Sets.
Pan T; Mulhern B; Viney R; Norman R; Hanmer J; Devlin N
Pharmacoeconomics; 2022 Mar; 40(3):297-307. PubMed ID: 34786591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Valuation of Health States Considered to Be Worse Than Death-An Analysis of Composite Time Trade-Off Data From 5 EQ-5D-5L Valuation Studies.
Gandhi M; Rand K; Luo N
Value Health; 2019 Mar; 22(3):370-376. PubMed ID: 30832976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. A head-to-head comparison of EQ-5D-5L and SF-6D in Dutch patients with fractures visiting a Fracture Liaison Service.
Li N; Boonen A; van den Bergh JP; van Kuijk SMJ; Wyers CE; van Oostwaard M; Vranken L; Bours SPG; Hiligsmann M
J Med Econ; 2022; 25(1):829-839. PubMed ID: 35674412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Experience-Based Swedish TTO and VAS Value Sets for EQ-5D-5L Health States.
Burström K; Teni FS; Gerdtham UG; Leidl R; Helgesson G; Rolfson O; Henriksson M
Pharmacoeconomics; 2020 Aug; 38(8):839-856. PubMed ID: 32307663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Estimating health state utilities in primary hyperoxaluria type 1: a valuation study.
de Freitas HM; Danese D; Hubig L; Lloyd A; Lombardelli S
J Med Econ; 2023; 26(1):386-393. PubMed ID: 36852648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Societal Utilities for Cognitive Impairment in Schizophrenia: Developing a Preference-Based Scoring Algorithm Based on the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale.
Santi I; Lloyd AJ; Hastedt CE; Versteegh MM
Adv Ther; 2023 Sep; 40(9):4060-4073. PubMed ID: 37440123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
