44 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38341575)
21. 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]
22. Developing a New Region-Specific Preference-Based Measure in East and Southeast Asia.
Shiroiwa T; Murata T; Ahn J; Li X; Nakamura R; Teerawattananon Y; Kun Z; Shafie AA; Valverde H; Lam H; Ng K; Nadjib M; Pwu RF; Nugraha RR; Chen YC; Fukuda T
Value Health Reg Issues; 2022 Nov; 32():62-69. PubMed ID: 36099801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Eight Dimension (FACT-8D), a Multi-Attribute Utility Instrument Derived From the Cancer-Specific FACT-General (FACT-G) Quality of Life Questionnaire: Development and Australian Value Set.
King MT; Norman R; Mercieca-Bebber R; Costa DSJ; McTaggart-Cowan H; Peacock S; Janda M; Müller F; Viney R; Pickard AS; Cella D;
Value Health; 2021 Jun; 24(6):862-873. PubMed ID: 34119085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cost-effectiveness evaluation for pricing medicines and devices: A new value-based price adjustment system in Japan.
Shiroiwa T
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2020 Jun; 36(3):270-276. PubMed ID: 32419677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Overview, Update, and Lessons Learned From the International EQ-5D-5L Valuation Work: Version 2 of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Protocol.
Stolk E; Ludwig K; Rand K; van Hout B; Ramos-Goñi JM
Value Health; 2019 Jan; 22(1):23-30. PubMed ID: 30661630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of Value Set Based on DCE and/or TTO Data: Scoring for EQ-5D-5L Health States in Japan.
Shiroiwa T; Ikeda S; Noto S; Igarashi A; Fukuda T; Saito S; Shimozuma K
Value Health; 2016; 19(5):648-54. PubMed ID: 27565282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Impact of Different DCE-Based Approaches When Anchoring Utility Scores.
Norman R; Mulhern B; Viney R
Pharmacoeconomics; 2016 Aug; 34(8):805-14. PubMed ID: 27034244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. QLU-C10D: a health state classification system for a multi-attribute utility measure based on the EORTC QLQ-C30.
King MT; Costa DS; Aaronson NK; Brazier JE; Cella DF; Fayers PM; Grimison P; Janda M; Kemmler G; Norman R; Pickard AS; Rowen D; Velikova G; Young TA; Viney R
Qual Life Res; 2016 Mar; 25(3):625-36. PubMed ID: 26790428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of methods for converting DCE values onto the full health-dead QALY scale.
Rowen D; Brazier J; Van Hout B
Med Decis Making; 2015 Apr; 35(3):328-40. PubMed ID: 25398621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Introducing the composite time trade-off: a test of feasibility and face validity.
Janssen BM; Oppe M; Versteegh MM; Stolk EA
Eur J Health Econ; 2013 Jul; 14 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S5-13. PubMed ID: 23900660
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure.
Netten A; Burge P; Malley J; Potoglou D; Towers AM; Brazier J; Flynn T; Forder J; Wall B
Health Technol Assess; 2012; 16(16):1-166. PubMed ID: 22459668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Using a discrete choice experiment to estimate health state utility values.
Bansback N; Brazier J; Tsuchiya A; Anis A
J Health Econ; 2012 Jan; 31(1):306-18. PubMed ID: 22197308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L).
Herdman M; Gudex C; Lloyd A; Janssen M; Kind P; Parkin D; Bonsel G; Badia X
Qual Life Res; 2011 Dec; 20(10):1727-36. PubMed ID: 21479777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. A uniform time trade off method for states better and worse than dead: feasibility study of the 'lead time' approach.
Devlin NJ; Tsuchiya A; Buckingham K; Tilling C
Health Econ; 2011 Mar; 20(3):348-61. PubMed ID: 21308856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Development of the EQ-5D-Y: a child-friendly version of the EQ-5D.
Wille N; Badia X; Bonsel G; Burström K; Cavrini G; Devlin N; Egmar AC; Greiner W; Gusi N; Herdman M; Jelsma J; Kind P; Scalone L; Ravens-Sieberer U
Qual Life Res; 2010 Aug; 19(6):875-86. PubMed ID: 20405245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Working with children to develop dimensions for a preference-based, generic, pediatric, health-related quality-of-life measure.
Stevens KJ
Qual Health Res; 2010 Mar; 20(3):340-51. PubMed ID: 20054040
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The CarerQol instrument: a new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations.
Brouwer WB; van Exel NJ; van Gorp B; Redekop WK
Qual Life Res; 2006 Aug; 15(6):1005-21. PubMed ID: 16900281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the health utilities index mark 3 system.
Feeny D; Furlong W; Torrance GW; Goldsmith CH; Zhu Z; DePauw S; Denton M; Boyle M
Med Care; 2002 Feb; 40(2):113-28. PubMed ID: 11802084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Deriving a preference-based single index from the UK SF-36 Health Survey.
Brazier J; Usherwood T; Harper R; Thomas K
J Clin Epidemiol; 1998 Nov; 51(11):1115-28. PubMed ID: 9817129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
