In this sub-set , it was found that method ological differences contributed to variation in utility values .
Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods .
Within direct methods , there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies ( st and ard gamble [ SG ] vs time trade-off ) ; but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods .
When comparing indirect methods , the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D , but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states .
When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model , consideration of the utility elicitation method is important , as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD
AIMS Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) , but values can vary depending on the method used .
The aim of this systematic literature review ( SLR ) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD .
Performance of two measures of general health-related quality of life, the EQ-5D and the RAND-36 among critically ill patients
Objective To compare two health-related quality of life measures , the preference-based EQ-5D with five questions and the profile-based R AND -36 with 36 questions , in previous critically ill patients . Design Prospect i ve observational study . Setting A ten-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit ( ICU ) in a tertiary care university hospital . Patients Of the 2,709 critically ill patients , treated during the years 1995–2000 , the 1,099 patients of the 1,443 still alive who returned both mailed measures were included in the study . Interventions None . Measurements and main results The EQ-5D and the R AND -36 correlated well ( P < .001 ) . Ceiling effect was more obvious with the EQ-5D ; the values of the R AND -36 varied usually from 0 to 100 in all the three levels of the corresponding EQ-5D question , and the weakest statistically significant differences were between the EQ levels 2 and 3 . In particular , the R AND -36 proved to differentiate better the levels of mobility , self-care , and poor outcome . Conclusions The EQ-5D and the R AND -36 correlated well , but when more precisely stated information is needed , especially regarding mobility , self-care , or low quality of life levels of previous critically ill patients , the profile-based R AND -36 may discriminate better
In this sub-set , it was found that method ological differences contributed to variation in utility values .
Direct methods often yielded higher scores than did indirect methods .
Within direct methods , there were no clear trends in head-to-head studies ( st and ard gamble [ SG ] vs time trade-off ) ; but general population respondents often provided lower scores than did patients with the disease when evaluating the same health states with SG methods .
When comparing indirect methods , the EQ-5D typically yielded higher values than the SF-6D , but also showed more sensitivity to differences in health states .
When selecting CVD utility values for an economic model , consideration of the utility elicitation method is important , as this review demonstrates that methodology of choice impacts utility values in CVD
AIMS Utility values inform estimates of the cost-effectiveness of treatment for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) , but values can vary depending on the method used .
The aim of this systematic literature review ( SLR ) was to explore how methods of elicitation impact utility values for CVD .